ANTONIO ESTABAYA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. PRISCILLA C. MIJARES, CITY JUDGE OF MANILA, BRANCH VII AND ROSITA L. GARCIA, RESPONDENTS.

In this Petition for Certiorari,
petitioner Antonio Estabaya seeks to set aside the
Orders dated September 30, 1980 and December 3, 1980 of the City Court of Manila, Branch VII, in
Civil Case No. 043438 for Ejectment, entitled
“Rosita L. Garcia vs. Antonio Estabaya“.

During the hearing of
July 29, 1980 for continuation of the reception of petitioner’s evidence (as
defendant in the case below), the latter requested for deferment for the reason
that his counsel was ill and confined at the hospital, presenting as proof thereof,
a Certificate of Confinement issued by the attending physician of his
counsel.  The Court denied postponement
on the ground that the said certificate was not under oath and forthwith
considered the case submitted for decision.

Petitioner moved to lift
or set aside said Order on August 7, 1980 explaining that the certificate was unsworn because the attending physician of his counsel
became available only in the evening of July 28, 1980 and he (the physician)
had no time to appear before a Notary Public. 
Petitioner then submitted a duly notarized certificate of
confinement.  Respondent Court in its
Order of September 30, 1980 denied the Motion for lack of merit.

Petitioner filed a “Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Set
Aside Order Considering Case Submitted for Decision”, attaching therewith
a notarized Medical Certificate.  Opposed
by private respondent, the Court again denied the Motion for lack of merit in
its Order of December 8, 1980.

Hence, this Petition
assailing respondent Court’s foregoing Orders of September 30, 1980 and December 8, 1980.

Required to comment, private respondent Rosita L. Garcia alleged
that all postponements of the hearing of this case were at the instance of
petitioner, who moved for
deferment on the date of hearing itself, without his counsel appearing in
Court; that petitioner cannot invoke procedural due process as he was notified
of all the scheduled hearings; that there is no ground nor justification to set
aside the questioned Orders; and that the instant Petition is not the proper remedy.  It should be noted that private respondent
does not refute the fact of confinement of petitioner’s counsel.

We resolved to give due
course to the Petition.

The sworn certificate of confinement, the deposit slip showing
initial deposit of money upon admission to the hospital of petitioner’s
counsel, and the medical certificate, also under oath, prove that counsel was
still confined at St. Agnes General Hospital until the morning of July 29,
1980, the scheduled date of hearing, which was the reason for his non-attendance in Court on that
date.  There being
a valid ground for petitioner’s request for deferment of hearing, respondent
Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the same.  The previous postponement of the hearings at
the instance of petitioner’s counsel should not bar the grant of a subsequent
postponement for a valid reason.  Justice
is better served by a brief continuance with the end in view of an ultimate
reckoning between the parties.  Speed in
judicial administration must yield to the cause of justice.  It is in the balancing of these factors that
a magistrate must exercise judicious discretion.

“Postponement and continuance are part and parcel of our
procedural system of dispensing justice, and when no substantial rights are affected
and the intention to delay is not manifest, it is sound judicial discretion to
allow them” (Rexwell Corporation vs. Canlas, 3 SCRA 875 [1961]); also cited in Perez vs. Perez,
73 SCRA 517 [1976]).

WHEREFORE, respondent Court is hereby ordered to continue hearing Civil Case No. 045438
until its termination, with no petitions for postponement to be entertained
provided ample notice of hearing is given, and to render judgment accordingly.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Acting Chairman),
Fernandez, Guerrero, and De Castro, JJ., concur.