Lagon v. Velasco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Armando Lagon (Lagon) obtained a cash loan of Php 300,000.00 from Gabriel Dizon (Dizon) in December 2000, issuing a postdated check which was dishonored for being drawn against insufficient funds. Dizon sent a demand letter on May 6, 2011, which Lagon refused to pay. Procedural History: Dizon filed a Complaint for Sum of Money on June 6, 2011. Lagon filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of prescription, which was later followed by an Answer asserting payment. During the preliminary conference, parties were directed to file pre-trial briefs. On August 9, 2012, a Pre-Trial Conference Order was issued. On June 6, 2013, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Koronadal, South Cotabato, through Judge Dennis A. Velasco, issued an order directing parties to submit judicial affidavits of their witnesses five days prior to trial dates, imposing a fine on the plaintiff for non-compliance and ordering reimbursement of defendant's expenses. Lagon received the order on June 26, 2013, and filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, arguing that Section 2 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule was unconstitutional as it violated his right to due process by compelling him to adduce evidence before the plaintiff rested his case. On July 10, 2013, Judge Velasco denied the motion. The Petition: Lagon filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the orders of Judge Velasco for allegedly committing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether Section 2 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule, requiring a defendant to adduce testimony and submit documentary evidence by judicial affidavits before pre-trial or preliminary conference, offends the right to due process of law. Whether Judge Velasco committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed orders.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The assailed Order dated June 6, 2013, issued by Judge Dennis A. Velasco, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Koronadal City, is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether Section 2 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule offends the right to due process: The Court held that Section 2 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule does not violate the right to due process. The rule was promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to its constitutional power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure. Its purpose is to eradicate protracted litigations, address case congestion, and expedite the adjudication of cases. The rule mandates the submission of judicial affidavits in lieu of direct testimonies, which has been proven to significantly reduce the time for presenting witnesses. The requirement for defendants to submit their judicial affidavits before the plaintiff rests their case is not a violation of due process; rather, it is necessary for the orderly administration of proceedings, especially since defendants are already required to submit pre-trial briefs outlining their defense, witnesses, and exhibits. Furthermore, the Judicial Affidavit Rule does not preclude a defendant from filing a demurrer to evidence if they believe the plaintiff's evidence is insufficient. On the issue of whether Judge Velasco committed grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Velasco. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Judge Velasco was merely enforcing the Judicial Affidavit Rule, a procedural regulation promulgated by the Supreme Court. His faithful observance of these rules cannot be considered a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary act. The petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving grave abuse of discretion, which requires more than just a reversible error; it must be a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. The enforcement of procedural rules, especially those designed to promote efficiency and speedy disposition of cases, is a positive duty of the court.
Main Doctrine
The Judicial Affidavit Rule, promulgated by the Supreme Court, does not violate a defendant's right to due process by requiring the submission of judicial affidavits before the pre-trial or trial, as it aims to expedite proceedings and does not preclude the filing of a demurrer to evidence.