JACINTO C. SY AND SY CHI SIONG, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JUDGE HONORIO E. GUANLAO, JR. AND CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.
DIMAAMPAO, J.:
The precursor facts of the case are uncomplicated.
Private respondent China Banking Corporation (private respondent) filed a Complaint for Sum of Money against petitioners Jacinto Sy (Jacinto) and Sy Chi Siong in their capacity as sureties to the principal borrower. We shall collectively refer to them as petitioners. Traversing the Complaint, petitioners asserted that they never signed a Surety Agreement.
Trial on the merits ensued wherein the parties were allowed to substantiate their respective postures.
Petitioners presented as their witnesses Jacinto himself, Aida Casaclang (Aida), and Ricky Delambutique (Ricky). Subsequently, on the hearing held on 17 June 2013, petitioners manifested to present their fourth witness. Petitioners having failed to file the Judicial Affidavit five days before the said hearing, public respondent, in the impugned Order, disallowed such presentation and instead required them to file their Formal Offer of Exhibits.
Dissatisfied, petitioners moved for reconsideration but the court a quo, via the repugned Resolution, found no merit in their Motion.
Perforce, petitioners come to Us through this Petition, anchored on this solitary ground—
THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT IMPLIEDLY CONSIDERED THE CASE SUBMITTED FOR DECISION AND DENIED BOTH PETITIONERS THEIR RIGHT TO PRESENT THEIR EVIDENCE WHEN ON A MERE TECHNICALITY.
The Petition bears no merit.
First off, it bears stressing that to justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, the petitioner must satisfactorily show that the court or quasi-judicial authority gravely abused the discretion conferred upon them. Grave abuse of discretion connotes judgment exercised in a capricious and whimsical manner that is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. To be considered “grave,” the discretionary authority must be exercised in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law.[4]
In the case at bench, petitioners postulate that public respondent exhibited whimsicality in issuing the oppugned Order and Resolution. Indeed, public respondent’s action of disallowing the presentation of one of their witnesses for their failure to file the Judicial Affidavit as provided under the law is tantamount to grave abuse of discretion since they were denied their right to present evidence on a mere technicality. They should be given a leeway in presenting their evidence inasmuch as the record would show that they could no longer locate the witness they wanted to present, and that the last intended witness, Expedito Nacu, was only belatedly obtained.[5]
Petitioners’ postulation fails to impress Us.
A perspicacious review of the record reveals no grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondent.
At the core of the instant case is A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC otherwise known as the Judicial Affidavit Rule. This Rule which took effect on 1 January 2013 has prospective application.[6] Whence, public respondent properly applied the same in this case.
Appositely, Section 10 thereof reads:
“SECTION 10. Effect of Non-Compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule. — (a) A party who fails to submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time shall be deemed to have waived their submission. The court may, however, allow only once the late submission of the same provided, the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.xxx”
Records reflect that in petitioners’ Pre-trial Brief,[7] they reserved the right to present additional witnesses even if they did not indicate their names.[8]
To Our mind, public respondent gave petitioners ample opportunity to present evidence. In point of fact, petitioners presented two other witnesses, i.e., Aida and Ricky. It must be emphasized that this is not the first time that petitioners failed to comply with the Judicial Affidavit Rule. It was only during the hearing for the presentation of Aida as witness that petitioners furnished private respondent a copy of the former’s Judicial Affidavit.[9] Evidently, this runs afoul of Section 2 of the aforesaid Rule, which ordains:
“SECTION 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in Lieu of Direct Testimonies. — (a) The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, personally or by licensed courier service, not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents, the following:
(1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the place of such witnesses’ direct testimonies; and
(2) The parties’ documentary or object evidence, if any, which shall be attached to the judicial affidavits and marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on in the case of the complainant or the plaintiff, and as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on in the case of the respondent or the defendant.
(b) Should a party or a witness desire to keep the original document or object evidence in his possession, he may, after the same has been identified, marked as exhibit, and authenticated, warrant in his judicial affidavit that the copy or reproduction attached to such affidavit is a faithful copy or reproduction of that original. In addition, the party or witness shall bring the original document or object evidence for comparison during the preliminary conference with the attached copy, reproduction, or pictures, failing which the latter shall not be admitted. This is without prejudice to the introduction of secondary evidence in place of the original when allowed by existing rules.”
Be that as it may, public respondent still allowed Aida to testify even without any valid reason as required.
On the hearing of 27 May 2013, petitioners failed to present as witness the President and/or General Manager of Audacious Security Agency.[10] All the same, public respondent gave petitioners another opportunity to present their intended witness on 17 June 2013 with the caveat to submit the latter’s Judicial Affidavit five days before the said hearing.[11] Sadly, petitioners failed to do so.
Public respondent’s leniency belies petitioners’ claim about strict observance of the technical rules. Case law teaches Us that relaxation of the rigid rules of technical procedure should always be anchored on the basic consideration that the same must be warranted by the circumstances obtaining in each case. Here, We found none. Ergo, public respondent committed no capriciousness in rendering the assailed Order and Resolution.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Ybañez and Manahan, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-13.
[2] Id., p. 14.
[3] Id., pp. 15-16.
[4] See Ayungo v. Beamko Shipmanagement Corp., G.R. No. 203161 (26 February 2014).
[5] See Petition for Certiorari, Rollo, p. 8.
[6] Section 12 of A. M. No. 12-8-8-SC provides: “Effectivity – This rule shall take affect on January 1, 2013 following its publication in two newspapers of general circulation not later than September 15, 2012. It shall also apply to existing cases.”
[7] Rollo, pp. 70-75.
[8] Id., p. 73.
[9] TSN, 14 January 2013, p. 5.
[10] See Order dated 22 April 2013, Rollo, p. 24, in relation to China Banking Corporation’s Memorandum, Id., p. 184.
[11] See Resolution dated 28 August 2013, Id., p. 15.