JAIME BALITE, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. JUDGE DOMINGO CABANGON, DELFIN MACADANGDANG, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Balite versus Cabangon

The Case

This is Balite versus Cabangon, a special civil action for prohibition with a prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction, decided by the Supreme Court in May 1967. A tenant, Jaime Balite, was declared in default in an ejectment case before the Court of Agrarian Relations after he and his lawyer failed to appear at the pre-trial. He asks the Supreme Court to stop the agrarian court from receiving the landowners' evidence and to lift the default. The case matters because it fixes how strictly the sixty-day period for a petition for relief is counted, and because it reminds us that agrarian courts are not bound by technicalities of procedure.

Procedural History

Delfin Macadaeg and six other alleged co-owners filed a petition for ejectment against their tenant, Jaime Balite, in the Court of Agrarian Relations, third regional district. The tenant answered, resisting the petition. At the scheduled pre-trial, neither the tenant nor his counsel appeared, and the court declared the tenant in default. His lawyer arrived about an hour and twenty-five minutes late and moved to lift the default, but the motion was denied because it was not under oath. A motion for leave to amend the motion for reconsideration was also denied. A further motion for reconsideration was denied. Finally, the tenant filed a petition for relief from the default order, which the agrarian court denied on the ground that it was filed late. The tenant then came to the Supreme Court by a petition for prohibition with a prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction. The Supreme Court did not grant the preliminary injunction but required the respondents to answer, and the case was submitted for decision after the answer was filed and the case was heard.

Facts

Delfin Macadaeg and six others claimed to be co-owners of a fifteen-hectare parcel of land in Santa Ines East, Santa Ignacia municipality, Tarlac. In June 1963 they filed a petition for ejectment against their tenant, Jaime Balite, before the Court of Agrarian Relations, third regional district. Their stated ground was their desire and intention to till their own land, the tenant having allegedly agreed to surrender it for that purpose.

The tenant answered in May 1964, resisting the petition. He stated that, under an amicable settlement in another case, the landowners had agreed not to eject him. An amended petition with substantially the same allegations was later filed.

On September 26, 1964, at ten in the morning, the pre-trial conference was called as scheduled. Neither the tenant nor his counsel was present, and the court declared the tenant in default. At around eleven twenty-five that same morning, the tenant's lawyer arrived and filed a motion to lift the default order, explaining that he had arrived late due to a traffic delay. Although he was only an hour and twenty-five minutes late, the motion was denied because it was not under oath as required by the Rules of Court. The tenant's counsel received the denial order on October 9, 1964. He then filed a motion for leave to amend the motion for reconsideration, which was denied. A motion for reconsideration of that denial and of the order maintaining the tenant in default was denied on December 16, 1964, and the denial was served on December 21, 1964. Finally, the tenant filed a petition for relief from the default order, which the agrarian court denied on the ground that it was filed late.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge erred in finding that the petition for relief was filed eighty-three days after receipt of the order sought to be set aside.
• Whether or not the petition for relief, filed a few days beyond the sixty-day period but within six months from the issuance of the order, may be considered timely.
• Whether or not the dismissal of the petition for relief for being late constituted a serious abuse of discretion correctible by the writ of prohibition.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3 of Rule 38 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

Within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or order was entered, or such proceeding was taken.

This provision fixes the period within which a petition for relief must be filed, and the Court uses it to test whether the tenant's petition was timely.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent judge erred in his computation. The judge had counted sixty-seven days from October 9 to November 27, 1964, and sixteen days from December 21, 1964 to January 5, 1965, for a total of eighty-three days. The Court found that from October 9 to November 27 is only forty-nine days, not sixty-seven, so that forty-nine days plus sixteen days equals sixty-five days in all. The petition was therefore late for only five days, not twenty-three days.

On the second issue, the Court held that a few days in excess of the sixty-day period would not be fatal, as long as the petition for relief is filed within six months from the date the order was issued. The Court added that the case involves the Court of Agrarian Relations which, although governed by the Rules of Court, is not bound by technicalities of procedure under Section 155 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code.

On the third issue, the Court held that the dismissal of the petition for relief for being late constituted a serious abuse of discretion remediable by certiorari. It noted that although the new Rules of Court provide for appeal from the denial of a petition for relief, that remedy would not have been sufficient or timely, especially because appeal does not stay execution of a decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations.

Doctrine

A petition for relief from judgment or order must be filed within sixty days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six months after such judgment or order was entered. A few days in excess of the sixty-day period is not fatal, provided the petition is filed within six months from the date the order was issued. The Court of Agrarian Relations, although governed by the Rules of Court, is not bound by technicalities of procedure. The dismissal of a petition for relief for being late, when the delay is slight and within the six-month limit, is a serious abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari.

Disposition

The Supreme Court set aside the respondent judge's order dismissing the petition for relief and ordered further proceedings on that petition in accordance with Sections 4 to 7 of Rule 38, staying in the meantime the proceedings in the ejectment case until the petition for relief is finally resolved. The tenant, Jaime Balite, won.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a few days in excess of the sixty-day period for a petition for relief is not fatal, as long as it is filed within six months from the date the order was issued. Examiners like to use this case to test the computation of the sixty-day period and the rule that agrarian courts are not bound by technicalities of procedure.