Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 474 views

    Case Digest - 20

    Uploaded by

    Mythel Solis
    The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion when it admitted the petitioners' belatedly filed judicial affidavits (JA). Section 10(a) of the JA Rule allows for late submission of JAs if: (1) the delay is for a valid reason; (2) it does not unduly prejudice the other party; and (3) a fine is paid. Here, petitioners paid the fine and their failure to timely file was an honest procedural mistake. Admitting the JAs did not prejudice respondent as no evidence was presented yet. The RTC has discretion to admit belated filings if there are meritorious reasons and it does not affect substantial justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest - 20

    Uploaded by

    Mythel Solis
    474 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion when it admitted the petitioners' belatedly filed judicial affidavits (JA). Section 10(a) of the JA Rule allows for late submission of JAs if: (1) the delay is for a valid reason; (2) it does not unduly prejudice the other party; and (3) a fine is paid. Here, petitioners paid the fine and their failure to timely file was an honest procedural mistake. Admitting the JAs did not prejudice respondent as no evidence was presented yet. The RTC has discretion to admit belated filings if there are meritorious reasons and it does not affect substantial justice.

    Original Title

    Case Digest_20.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion when it admitted the petitioners' belatedly filed judicial affidavits (JA). Section 10(a) of the JA Rule allows for late submission of JAs if: (1) the delay is for a valid reason; (2) it does not unduly prejudice the other party; and (3) a fine is paid. Here, petitioners paid the fine and their failure to timely file was an honest procedural mistake. Admitting the JAs did not prejudice respondent as no evidence was presented yet. The RTC has discretion to admit belated filings if there are meritorious reasons and it does not affect substantial justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    474 views2 pages

    Case Digest - 20

    Uploaded by

    Mythel Solis
    The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion when it admitted the petitioners' belatedly filed judicial affidavits (JA). Section 10(a) of the JA Rule allows for late submission of JAs if: (1) the delay is for a valid reason; (2) it does not unduly prejudice the other party; and (3) a fine is paid. Here, petitioners paid the fine and their failure to timely file was an honest procedural mistake. Admitting the JAs did not prejudice respondent as no evidence was presented yet. The RTC has discretion to admit belated filings if there are meritorious reasons and it does not affect substantial justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Case #20: Say v Dizon, GR No.

    227457, 22 June 2020


    Ponente: Perlas-Bernabe, J.

    FACTS:
    Respondent, Gabriel Dizon, filed before the RTC a complaint for Declaration of Nullity
    of the Deed of Absolute Sale against the petitioners. However, it was dismissed on the
    ground of forum shopping. After the order of dismissal, the petitioners filed an Ex-Parte
    Motion for Leave of Court to Set Defendant’s Counterclaim for Hearing. Claiming that
    the notice was a mere notification of the hearing, petitioners filed their Judicial Affidavits
    one (1) day prior to the scheduled hearing. The RTC allowed the late submission of the
    Judicial Affidavits pursuant to the rule that technicalities must give way to substantial
    justice.

    Aggrieved, the respondents elevated the matter before the CA and the latter gave due
    course to the petition and set aside the RTC’s orders, holding that the RTC gravely
    abused its discretion when it admitted the belatedly filed Judicial Affidavits of petitioners
    without proof of compliance with the conditions laid down under Section 10(a) of the
    Judicial Affidavit Rule. Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration was denied, hence this
    petition.

    ISSUE:
    Is RTC guilty of grave abuse of discretion when it admitted the petitioners’ Judicial
    Affidavits which were belatedly filed?

    HELD:
    No, the RTC cannot be said to have gravely abused its discretion in permitting the delay
    in the submission of petitioners’ Judicial Affidavit.

    In the amended Section 6, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, it provides an exemption as to the
    absence of the judicial affidavit in the submitted pleading wherein a party presents
    meritorious reasons as basis for the admission. Moreover, Section 10(a) of the Judicial
    Affidavit Rule, does not contain a blanket prohibition on the submission of a belatedly
    filed judicial affidavit. It also stated in the same provision that the submission of the
    required judicial affidavits beyond the mandated period maybe allowed provided that: (a)
    the delay is for a valid reason; (b) it would not unduly prejudice the opposing party; and
    (c) the defaulting party pays the specified fine.

    In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioners complied with the RTC’s
    directive to pay a fine of Php 2,500.00 for the late submission of their Judicial Affidavits.
    With respect to the justification for the delay, petitioners’ counsel, in good faith, believed
    that the notice of hearing is not yet the approval of their ex-parte motion. The Court
    observes that the petitioner’s failure was an honest procedural mistake as records show
    that they actually submitted their Judicial Affidavits a day prior to the hearing having no
    deliberate intention to flout the rules. Also, the admission of petitioners’ Judicial
    Affidavits would not – as it actually did not – unduly prejudice the respondent as the
    RTC did not allow the presentation of evidence. Admitting the same would not
    necessarily mean that the said counterclaim would already be granted since respondent
    would still be given the chance to present his own evidence to controvert the same.

    You might also like