SPOUSES TITO AND PACITA ARBATIN, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JOSE S. JACINTO, JR. (IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 45, SAN JOSE, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO) A…
PAREDES, J.:
THIS PETITION[1] FOR CERTIORARI, filed under Rule 65, Revised Rules of Court by spouses Tito and Pacita Arbatin (petitioners) seeks to set aside or nullify the Order[2] dated August 22, 2012 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 45, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, in Civil Case No. R-1581, which directed petitioners to reimburse private respondent Yolanda Valdez-Paningbatan (private respondent) the total amount of P10,000.00 as and for private respondent’s travel and food expenses and attorney’s fees for the hearings scheduled previously and on that day, where petitioners and counsel failed to appear despite notice and without reason, and the Orders dated October 17, 2012[3] and December 14, 2012[4], denying petitioners’ first and second motions for reconsideration, respectively.
THE ANTECEDENTS
On January 22, 2009, private respondent filed a complaint[5] with the RTC for recovery of possession and damages against petitioners.
Pre-trial was held on August 27, 2010 and the initial hearing was set[6] on November 18-19, 2010. The parties agreed to make earnest efforts at a compromise thus, the initial hearing was reset[7], by agreement of the parties, to July 26, 2011. After an unsuccessful mediation and another resetting prayed for by both parties, the initial presentation of evidence for plaintiff (now, private respondent) was set on November 24, 2011. At the scheduled hearing on November 24, 2011, by agreement of counsels, hearing was reset[8], for the last time, to March 5, 2012. However, due to the illness of petitioners’ counsel[9], the initial hearing was again moved to March 27, 2012.
On March 27, 2012, both parties moved[10] for resetting to May 9, 2012; however, due to the failure of defendants’ counsel (now, petitioners) to appear, hearing was reset[11] to June 7, 2012.
On June 7, 2012, the court a quo reset[12], for the last time, the presentation of private respondent’s evidence, to August 22, 2012.
On August 22, 2012, after noting the absence of petitioners, the RTC issued the first assailed Order[13], which reads:
WHEREFORE, upon inquiry from the plaintiff her total expenses going all the way from Isabela to San Jose she spent the amount of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) including food expenses one way, thus, for back and forth travel, she will be spending the total amount of Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) while the attorney’s fee shall be in the amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00). Thus, the Court hereby ORDERS the defendants to reimburse the plaintiff the total amount of Seven Thousand Pesos (P7,000.00) for the latter’s expenses today, plus the previous unpaid reimbursement in the reduced amount of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) in the total amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) payable on or before the next setting.
The defendants are directed to pay the said amount in the next scheduled hearing without fail.
The defendants’ counsel, is warned to exercise caution as Officer of the Court that he should file his corresponding pleadings to the Court if he will not be available on any date as scheduled. A repetition of his uninformed absence, the Court shall allow the presentation of the plaintiff’s evidence.
Reset the hearing of this case for the presentation of the plaintiff’s evidence on October 26, 2012 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning.
Notify anew both the defendants and counsel.
Plaintiff and counsel are notified in open Court.
SO ORDERED.
Petitioners’ motion to reset the August 22, 2012 hearing, which was filed on August 8, 2012, was resolved by the RTC in its Order[14] dated August 30, 2012 stating that the said motion has become moot and academic as the hearing was already reset before the court received the subject motion.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration[15] of the first assailed Order dated August 22, 2012 which was denied by the RTC in its second assailed Order[16] dated October 17, 2012.
Petitioners filed a second motion for reconsideration[17] of the first assailed Order, which was also denied by the RTC in its third assailed Order[18] dated December 14, 2012; hence, this petition.
THE ISSUES
Petitioners raise the following grounds for allowance of this petition:
A. THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT JUDGE, IN ORDERING THE REIMBURSEMENT OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S TRAVEL AND FOOD EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, MADE A PREMATURE RULING ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND CONSEQUENTLY DEPRIVED PETITIONERS OF THEIR DUE PROCESS RIGHTS; AND
B. THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT JUDGE ORDERED THE REIMBURSEMENT OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S TRAVEL AND FOOD EXPENSES WITHOUT LEGAL AND FACTUAL BASIS.
In fine, the main issue presented for our consideration is whether or not public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Orders.
THE COURT’S RULING
The petition is without merit.
Petitioners claim that the arbitrary acts of the RTC resulted in the denial of their right to due process as the court a quo‘s directive for the reimbursement of travel expenses and attorney’s fees was a premature ruling on the merits of the case, this being made being without legal and factual basis, thus depriving petitioners of their right to due process.
Petitioners argue that their absence at the August 22, 2012 hearing was justified as petitioners’ counsel filed a motion to reset on August 8, 2012 on the ground of conflict of schedule as he was committed to appear before the RTC of Tacloban City and Catbalogan, Samar on August 20-23, 2012.
We are not persuaded.
In a special action for certiorari, the burden is on petitioners to prove not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondent. Grave abuse of discretion means a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave abuse of discretion as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law[19].
Although, the reason for the absence of petitioners’ counsel may have been valid, still, their counsel was remiss in assuming that his motion to reset the scheduled hearing would be granted as a matter of course. The grant of a motion for continuance or postponement is not a matter of right. It is addressed to the sound discretion of the courts. Parties asking for postponement have no right to assume that their motions would be granted. Thus, they must be prepared on the day of the hearing[20].
The RTC was justified in imposing a sanction against petitioners as they not only failed to appear at the August 22, 2012 hearing, but they failed to appear, without notice to the court or the other party, at the hearings scheduled on May 9, 2012 and June 7, 2012. The court a quo exercised proper judicial temperament despite petitioners’ abject disregard of the rules on notice.
The imposition of a sanction against petitioners for dragging the case for an undue length of time is among the inherent powers of the courts expressly recognized by the Rules, including the authority to enforce order in proceedings before it, to compel obedience to its judgments, orders and processes, and to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice[21]. In this regard, the imposition of sanctions is not a premature ruling on the merits of the case.
Neither were petitioners deprived of due process.
The most basic tenet of due process is the right to be heard. Where the parties have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do so, they cannot complain of deprivation of due process. Due process is satisfied as long as the party is accorded an opportunity to be heard. If it is not availed of, it is deemed forfeited without violating the Bill of Rights[22].
Petitioners were previously notified that the August 22, 2012 resetting would be the last resetting of the initial presentation of private respondent’s evidence. Despite previous warnings that no further postponement would be allowed, petitioners still failed to appear. After having been granted numerous motions for resetting, petitioners cannot now claim that they were denied due process.
The essence of due process is to be heard, and this means a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one’s side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of[23].
Petitioners were given an opportunity to explain their side when the RTC scheduled[24] a hearing of the first ex-parte motion for reconsideration. However, petitioners did not attend such hearing, despite being notified in open court. It is well-settled that where an opportunity to be heard either through oral argument or pleadings is accorded, there can be no denial of procedural due process[25].
Moreover, a motion for reconsideration is curative in character on the issue of alleged denial of due process, especially so where a party was given a chance to be heard with respect to his motion for reconsideration[26].
Given that petitioners filed not one but two motions for reconsideration, it is, therefore, beyond cavil that any alleged denial of due process has been addressed and cured.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The Orders dated August 22, 2012, October 17, 2012 and December 14, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 45, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, in Civil Case No. R-1581, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Dicdican, I.P., (Chairperson) and Inting, S.B.,* JJ., concur.
* Acting Senior Member vice J. Amy C. Lazaro-Javier per Office Order No. 516-14-RSF dated December 5, 2014.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-18.
[2] Rollo, pp. 19-20.
[3] Rollo, pp. 25-6.
[4] Rollo, pp. 32-3.
[5] Rollo, pp. 34-6.
[6] Order dated August 27, 2010, rollo, p. 38.
[7] Order dated May 24, 2011, rollo, p. 41.
[8] Order dated November 24, 2011, rollo, p. 43.
[9] Motion to Reset Hearing, rollo, pp. 44-6.
[10] Order dated March 27, 2012, rollo, p. 47.
[11] Order dated May 9, 2012, rollo, p. 48.
[12] See Order dated June 7, 2012, rollo, p. 49.
[13] Rollo, pp. 19-20.
[14] Order dated August 30, 2012, rollo, p. 53.
[15] Rollo, pp. 21-3.
[16] Rollo, pp. 25-6.
[17] Rollo, pp. 27-30.
[18] Rollo, pp. 32-3.
[19] Don Orestes Romualdez Electric Cooperative, Inc. (DORELCO) vs. NLRC and Lino L. Parone, G.R. No. 128389, November 25, 1999.
[20] R Transport Corporation vs. Philhino Sales Corporation, G.R. No. 148150, July 12, 2006.
[21] Rodolfo Paredes, et. al. vs. Ernesto Verano and Cosme Hinunangan, G.R. No. 164375, October 12, 2006.
[22] R Transport Corporation vs. Philhino Sales Corporation, G.R. No. 148150, July 12, 2006.
[23] Ray Peter O. Vivo vs. Philippine Amusement and Game Corporation (PAGCOR), G.R. No. 187854, November 12, 2013.
[24] Order dated October 17, 2012, rollo, pp. 25-6.
[25] Ray Peter O. Vivo vs. Philippine Amusement and Game Corporation (PAGCOR), G.R. No. 187854, November 12, 2013.
[26] Esther E. Cuerdo vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 84592, October 27, 1988.