Say vs. Dizon

Under Section 10(a) of the Judicial Affidavit Rule, a court may allow a belated submission once, provided the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays the prescribed fine; an honest, good-faith procedural misapprehension by counsel that results in a brief delay and does not compromise the adverse party’s opportunity to present evidence constitutes a valid reason, and admitting the affidavits in such circumstances does not amount to grave abuse of discretion.

Respondent Gabriel Dizon filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Absolute Sale against one Robert Dizon and petitioners (the Says) before the RTC of Koronadal City, docketed as Civil Case No. 1973-24. The complaint was dismissed on November 23, 2011 for forum shopping because respondent had filed a similar case involving the same subject matter. After the dismissal attained finality, petitioners sought to prosecute their compulsory counterclaim. Their Ex-Parte Motion for Leave of Court to Set Defendants’ Counterclaim for Hearing resulted in a Notice of Hearing from the Branch Clerk of Court, setting the case on March 13, 2014. The dispute over the timeliness of their judicial affidavits then arose.

• Nature: Respondent filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Absolute Sale against petitioners and another defendant. The RTC dismissed the complaint for forum shopping due to a similar pending case. The order of dismissal attained finality.

• Prosecution of Counterclaim: Petitioners filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Leave of Court to Set Defendants’ Counterclaim for Hearing. A Notice of Hearing dated November 25, 2013, signed by the Branch Clerk of Court, informed the parties that the case was set for hearing on March 13, 2014.

• Late Filing of Judicial Affidavits: Petitioners construed the Notice as a mere notification rather than a formal order granting their motion. They filed their Judicial Affidavits on March 12, 2014, one day before the hearing—four days beyond the five-day deadline prescribed by Section 2(a) of the Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR). Respondent opposed, citing the untimeliness.

• RTC Orders: In an Order dated September 2, 2014, the RTC admitted the Judicial Affidavits, ruling that technicalities must yield to substantial justice. On reconsideration, the RTC modified its order under Section 10(a) of the JAR, directing petitioners to pay a fine of P2,500.00 for the late submission.

• CA Ruling on Certiorari: The CA granted respondent’s Rule 65 petition, holding that the RTC gravely abused its discretion. The CA found that aside from paying the fine, petitioners failed to demonstrate a valid reason for the delay and that the late submission would not unduly prejudice respondent—two other conditions required by Section 10(a) of the JAR.

• Subsequent Proceedings: The actual reception of petitioners’ testimonies occurred on April 14, 2015. Respondent had already submitted rebuttal evidence in response to the admitted affidavits.

• Mistaken Belief Regarding Notice of Hearing: Petitioners maintained that they honestly believed the Notice of Hearing was not the formal grant of their Ex-Parte Motion—only a judge could formally approve or deny a motion—and that the five-day period under the JAR had not yet started to run. The notice itself did not expressly require the submission of judicial affidavits or warn of the consequences of non-compliance, unlike a standard pre-trial notice. The late filing, made a day before the hearing, was an innocent procedural error made in good faith.

• Absence of Prejudice: Petitioners contended that admitting the Judicial Affidavits caused no undue prejudice to respondent because the hearing for reception of evidence occurred only on April 14, 2015, and respondent ultimately submitted rebuttal evidence.

• Substantial Justice and Due Process: Petitioners argued that striking out their affidavits would permanently bar their counterclaim and deny them due process over a minor, innocuous procedural lapse. They invoked the principle that courts may relax procedural rules to prevent irreparable harm and fully ventilate the merits.

• Untimely Filing: Respondent countered that the Judicial Affidavits were filed beyond the mandatory five-day period prescribed by Section 2(a) of the JAR, as the March 13, 2014 hearing was the scheduled hearing for the counterclaim.

• Non-Compliance with Section 10(a) Conditions: Respondent argued that the RTC gravely abused its discretion because, apart from the fine, petitioners had not shown a valid reason for the delay and could not demonstrate lack of undue prejudice, as required by Section 10(a) of the JAR.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction when it admitted petitioners’ belatedly filed Judicial Affidavits under Section 10(a) of the Judicial Affidavit Rule.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Grave abuse of discretion was not established. The RTC acted within the bounds of its sound discretion in relaxing the JAR’s rigid application.

  The Court found that the three conditions under Section 10(a) of the JAR were satisfied. First, the delay was for a valid reason: petitioners’ counsel misconstrued the import of the Notice of Hearing in good faith, believing it was not yet the formal grant of the motion; the notice itself lacked the explicit directives and warnings typically found in pre-trial orders. The mistake was honest, and petitioners filed their affidavits a day before the hearing, negating any inference of deliberate flouting of the rules.

  Second, admitting the Judicial Affidavits caused no undue prejudice to respondent. On the scheduled hearing date, no evidence was yet presented; the actual reception of testimonies occurred only on April 14, 2015, more than a year later. Respondent subsequently filed rebuttal evidence, effectively negating any claim of prejudice.

  Third, petitioners paid the fine of P2,500.00 as directed by the RTC.

  The Court emphasized that procedural rules, even those of a mandatory character, may be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice when no substantial rights are affected and no intent to delay is manifest. The RTC’s exercise of discretion was not arbitrary, whimsical, or capricious; it was consistent with the judicial prerogative to ensure a full ventilation of the merits. The CA therefore erred in attributing grave abuse of discretion.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion Standard — Grave abuse of discretion exists only when a court acts in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility, amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. It is not a substitute for a mere error of judgment. (Citing Yu v. Judge Reyes-Carpio, 667 Phil. 474 (2011)).

• Relaxation of Procedural Rules in the Interest of Substantial Justice — Courts have the prerogative to relax procedural rules, even those of the most mandatory character, when a rigid application would frustrate substantial justice. Where no substantial rights are affected and there is no manifest intent to delay, sound judicial discretion permits the admission of belatedly filed pleadings or evidence so that the merits may be fully ventilated. (Citing Ong Lim Sing Jr. v. FEB Leasing & Finance Corporation, 551 Phil. 768 (2007); Spouses Sibay v. Spouses Bermudez, 813 Phil. 807 (2017)).

• Section 10(a) Judicial Affidavit Rule – Conditions for Late Submission — The late submission of judicial affidavits may be allowed once if: (a) the delay is for a valid reason; (b) it would not unduly prejudice the opposing party; and (c) the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00. An honest, good-faith procedural mistake by counsel that causes minimal delay and no prejudice qualifies as a valid reason.

• “Section 10 (a) does not contain a blanket prohibition on the submission of a belatedly filed judicial affidavit.” — This underscores that the JAR itself provides an exception, which the trial court may invoke under defined conditions.

• “[W]hen no substantial rights are affected and the intention to delay is not manifest with the corresponding [submission] x x x, it is sound judicial discretion to allow the same to the end that the merits of the case may be fully ventilated.” — Quoting Spouses Sibay v. Spouses Bermudez, this passage encapsulates the controlling principle behind the relaxation of procedural rules.

• “In numerous cases, this Court has allowed liberal construction of the rules when to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice and equity.” — The passage affirms the well-settled doctrine that courts prioritize meritorious determination over technical rigidity.

• Yu v. Judge Reyes-Carpio, 667 Phil. 474 (2011) — Cited for the standard of grave abuse of discretion: the abuse must be 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.

• Spouses Sibay v. Spouses Bermudez, 813 Phil. 807 (2017) — Cited for the rule that sound judicial discretion allows late submission of evidence when no substantial rights are affected and no intent to delay is manifest.

• Ong Lim Sing Jr. v. FEB Leasing & Finance Corporation, 551 Phil. 768 (2007) — Cited for the principle that courts have the prerogative to relax even mandatory procedural rules to serve the demands of substantial justice and equity.

• Section 2(a), Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-08-08-SC) — Requires parties to file and serve judicial affidavits and exhibits not later than five days before the scheduled hearing for motions and incidents. This provision established the deadline that petitioners violated.

• Section 10(a), Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-08-08-SC) — Provides that failure to timely submit judicial affidavits is deemed a waiver, but allows a single late submission if three conditions are met: valid reason, no undue prejudice, and payment of a fine between P1,000.00 and P5,000.00. The RTC applied this provision when it admitted petitioners’ affidavits and imposed the fine.

• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs the CA’s certiorari jurisdiction; the standard of grave abuse of discretion was examined to determine whether the RTC’s admission order was tainted with jurisdictional error.

Hernando, Inting, and Delos Santos, JJ., concur. Gaerlan, J., on leave.