Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > September 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-25031 September 25, 1968 - ISIDORO GEVEROLA v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-25031. September 25, 1968.]

ISIDORO GEVEROLA, Petitioner, v. THE HON. VICENTE N. CUSI, Jr., Court of First Instance of Davao, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

Artemio R. Corpus and Primo L. Ocampo for Petitioner.

Solicitor General for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; PLEADING AND PRACTICE; CONTINUANCES; DISCRETION OF THE COURT. — While the grant or denial of a motion for postponement rests in the discretion of the court, that discretion must be exercised in a sound and reasonable manner, not arbitrarily or capriciously.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; GROUNDS AND SUFFICIENCY OF SHOWING; ILLNESS. — There was grave abuse of discretion in denying a defense motion for postponement based upon illness of the accused, where the motion, first to be asked by the accused, was supported by a medical certificate issued by the municipal health officer sworn to before the municipal judge, the truth of which was not traversed by the fiscal, and it was not disputed that the distance where the accused resides and the place where the court holds session is 125 kilometers of rough roads.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRIOR NOTICE; EXCEPTION. — The mere fact that the notice of postponement was made orally in open court on August 23, the scheduled date of trial, without previous notice to the fiscal, is not inexcusable negligence, where it appeared that the accused was stricken ill on August 20 - a contingency or accident which could not be anticipated or foreseen - and it was only on August 22, a Sunday, when his counsel was informed of the sickness.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRIOR RESOLUTION OF MOTION NECESSARY. — It was a gross abuse of discretion for a trial court, acting on a motion for postponement, to order the immediate arrest of the accused and confiscation of his bail bond, without first resolving the motion for postponement, since the pendency of the said motion precludes and legally bars any further proceedings, especially where, as in the case at bar, the order of arrest and forfeiture of the bail was premised on the inability of the accused to appear at the trial.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; REASON. — The evident philosophy underlying the necessity of a prior resolution of a motion for postponement is to afford the movant ample opportunity to seek and avail of the legal remedies under the Rules of Court as may be proper under the premises. Such an opportunity is an integral part of the due process and its denial constitutes a violation of a constitutional right of an accused.


D E C I S I O N


ANGELES, J.:


On certiorari against the Court of First Instance of Davao, seeking to set aside the order of the respondent Judge decreeing the immediate arrest of herein petitioner, Isidoro Geverola, and the confiscation of the bail posted by him, for his failure to appear at the trial of the criminal case for Malversation through Falsification of Public Documents filed against the said petitioner, before the Court a quo.

Herein petitioner, Isidoro Geverola, is accused of Malversation through Falsification of Public Documents, in criminal case No. 8219, before the Court of First Instance of Davao. He was previously released provisionally upon a bail of P32,000.00. Upon arraignment, he interposed the plea of not guilty. The trial of the case was set for the first time on August 23, 24 and 25, 1965.

On the morning of August 23, 1965, the first day of the scheduled date of hearing of the case, Atty. Primo L. Ocampo appeared before the court in representation of the accused. In open court, said counsel orally moved for postponement of the hearing of the case, on the ground that the accused was ill of influenza with chronic cough, and was physically incapable of appearing at the trial. A medical certificate issued by Dr. Eugenio Claveria, municipal health officer of the town, duly sworn to before Enrique de los Santos, municipal judge of Malita, Davao, was submitted in support of the motion. The medical certificate states that Isidoro Geverola was under his treatment since August 20, 1965, of Influenza, with Chronic Cough, and the patient is a resident of Liquiab, Malita, Davao. (Annex A — motion.)

Respondents do not dispute the allegations in the petition that the distance between Malita (where petitioner resides) and Davao City (where the court holds its session) is 125 kilometers of rough road.

Acting upon but without resolving the defense motion for postponement, without objection on the part of the fiscal, an order was dictated in open court, as follows:ClubJuris

"We will order the arrest of the accused and forfeiture of the bond and we will have a hearing of your motion with the doctor testifying." (T.S.N. p. 3, Exhibit A, petition.)

No hearing of the case was held that morning, neither on the merits nor to receive the testimony of the doctor, for the reason that neither the accused nor the doctor was present in court.

Thereafter, a written order was issued, dated August 23, 1965, which was served on counsel of the accused the next day, as follows:ClubJuris

"For failure of the defendant Isidoro Geverola to appear this morning for trial despite notice to bondsmen, the bond filed herein for his temporary liberty is hereby declared forfeited and the said bondsmen are given thirty (30) days from today within which to produce the body of the accused and to explain why final judgment should not be rendered against the bond. Moreover, the immediate arrest of the accused is hereby directed." (Annex B, petition.) [Emphasis supplied]

On August 25, 1965, the accused, through counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration of the order, alleging among other matters:ClubJuris

". . . . if the motion for postponement, supported as it is by a medical certificate duly sworn to before a municipal judge, the truth of which was not traversed by the fiscal,. . . ." clubjuris

had been found spurious or that the illness of the accused is determined to be of such a nature as not to prevent him from travelling over 125 kilometers of rough roads in order to attend trial —"

. . . and the court had passed upon the motion, and denied it, . . . ." clubjuris

the order of August 25, 1965, would have been beyond question.

The motion for reconsideration was denied in an order dated August 28, 1965, as follows:ClubJuris

"Since no action on the oral motion for postponement has been taken because the Court will hear the same on the oral testimony of the doctor and since the accused failed to appear on the day set for trial, the order of forfeiture and his arrest was well taken. Had the counsel for the accused pressed the Court to resolve his motion, the same would have been denied because the medical certificate which is the basis thereof does not comply with the requirements prescribed by the Rules of Court." clubjuris

Hence, the instant petition for certiorari.

In retrospect, upon the foregoing facts which are not disputed, it is evident that without passing on the merits of the motion for postponement, the respondent judge ordered the arrest of the accused, and the confiscation of the bail. Significantly, however, having realized the necessity of a prior resolution of the motion for postponement, the respondent judge tried to justify the order of immediate arrest of the accused and the confiscation of the bail by declaring in his belated order of August 28 —

". . . Had the counsel for the accused pressed the Court to resolve his motion, the same would have been denied. . . ." clubjuris

Be that as it may, however, the last order could hardly be a justification for the improvident issuance of the order of arrest and confiscation of the bail, because the transfer of the hearing of the motion for postponement and consequent deferment of a resolution thereon should preclude and legally bar any further proceedings, especially when the order of arrest and forfeiture of the bail was premised on the inability of the accused to appear at the trial.

Section 2, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court provides:ClubJuris

"The court on the application of either party or on its own motion, may in its discretion for good cause postpone the trial of the case for such period of time as the ends of justice and the right of the defendant in a speedy trial require." clubjuris

It is a settled principle that the granting or denial of a motion for postponement rests, as a general rule, upon the discretion of the court. But this doctrine should not be taken to mean absolute authority, it being qualified in the sense that the discretion to be exercised must be sound and reasonable, not arbitrary or capricious. While the trial of cases with reasonable dispatch is as much the concern of the judges as of the parties, for that is conducive to the attainment of justice, however, considering that in the present case, the postponement sought was the first to be asked by the accused; the illness of the accused was seemingly serious, requiring rest on the part of the patient; the distance from Malita, where the accused was confined, to Davao City is more than 125 kilometers; there was no objection to the postponement on the part of the fiscal; the medical certificate was sworn to before a municipal judge and the truth of the certification was not traversed by the fiscal, under these circumstances, it would have been the better course of prudence to give the defense a reasonable opportunity to present the doctor to testify on his medical certificate, even if that course of action would involve a delay of the trial. For the court which is the guardian of the rights of the accused as well as those of the people at large should not, for light cause, jeopardize the rights or interest of both the accused and the jural society.

The fact that the notice for postponement was made orally in open court on the morning of the scheduled date of trial, without previous notice to the fiscal, is not inexcusable negligence, considering the peculiar circumstance obtaining in the case, that the accused appears to have been stricken with "influenza with chronic cough", on August 20, a contingency or accident which could not be anticipated or foreseen. As counsel for petitioner states in his memorandum —

"August 21 and 22 was a Saturday and Sunday, respectively, and it was only on August 22 when he was informed of the sickness of his client. Even if he had wanted to, he could not have filed an opportune motion before August 23, because the preceding day was a Sunday." clubjuris

What has rendered less excusable the issuance of the orders complained of, is the fact that without ruling on the motion for postponement, the accused was immediately ordered arrested and his bail confiscated.

"In perusing the records of this case, we noted that the attorney de officio in the court below prayed and insisted for the postponement of the trial which was scheduled to take place on the very morning in which he was notified of his appointment. WITHOUT RULING ON THE PETITION FOR POSTPONEMENT, WHICH WAS ITS DUTY TO DO, THE LOWER COURT PROCEEDED WITH THE TRIAL." (People v. Labra, 81 Phil. 394.)

The evident philosophy underlying the necessity of a prior resolution of the motion for postponement is to afford the movant ample opportunity to seek and avail of such remedies as may be proper under the premises, for, it cannot be disputed that there are legal remedies under the Rules of Court. Such an opportunity is an integral part of the due process and its denial constitutes a violation of a constitutional right of the accused.

"Although litigants are not justified in taking for granted that their motions would be granted, THE COURTS ARE BOUND TO ACT — in proper cases — ON ALL MOTIONS WITH SUFFICIENT DISPATCH NECESSARY TO ALLOW THE PARTIES TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF PROPER REMEDIES. THIS IS IMPLIED IN THE MANDATE THAT ‘JUSTICE SHALL BE IMPARTIALLY ADMINISTERED WITHOUT UNNECESSARY DELAY.’" (Semira v. Enriquez, 88 Phil. 228.)

Upon the foregoing considerations, We are of the opinion, and so hold, that the respondent judge acted with gross abuse of discretion in issuing the orders complained of.

WHEREFORE, the writ is granted, and the orders complained of are set aside. Without costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar, J., is on official leave of absence.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



September-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20977 September 7, 1968 - JOAQUIN P. NEMENZO v. BERNABE SABILLANO

  • G.R. No. L-28470 September 19, 1968 - REAL MONASTERIO v. DOMINGO FABIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24498 September 21, 1968 - TANGLAW NG PAGGAWA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24687 September 21, 1968 - IN RE: FONG CHOY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25135 September 21, 1968 - PHILIPPINE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS

  • G.R. No. L-25484 September 21, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVILLANO MA. MODESTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29417 September 21, 1968 - EDILBERTA P. ANOTA, ET AL. v. EDUARDO BERMUDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21303 September 23, 1968 - REPUBLIC BANK v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21942 September 23, 1968 - ELIZALDE & CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25791 September 23, 1968 - CARLOS B. GONZALES v. EULOGIO SERRANO

  • G.R. No. L-24833 September 23, 1968 - FIELDMEN’S INSURANCE CO., INC. v. MERCEDES VARGAS VDA. DE SONGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24202 September 23, 1968 - C.A. CHIONG SHIPPING CO., ET AL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21070 September 23, 1968 - REPUBLIC TELEPHONE CO., INC. v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21402 September 23, 1968 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. JOSE ARAÑAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24303 September 23, 1968 - BEATRIZ C. ARAGONES, ET AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-26137 September 23, 1968 - EUGENIO V. VILLANUEVA, JR. v. JOSE R. QUERUBIN

  • G.R. No. L-18010 September 25, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO CABILTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24656 September 25, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. NUMERIANO C. ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25031 September 25, 1968 - ISIDORO GEVEROLA v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25379 September 25, 1968 - JOSE L. LACHICA, ET AL. v. JUAN E. YAP

  • G.R. No. L-22733 September 25, 1968 - SALVADOR BENEDICTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23302 September 25, 1968 - ALEJANDRO RAS v. ESTELA SUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25132 September 25, 1968 - FRANCISCO DUQUE v. GAVINA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28927 September 25, 1968 - LAGUNA COLLEGE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29193 September 26, 1968 - CIPRIANO P. MALIWANAG v. AMEURFINA MELENCIO-HERRERA

  • G.R. No. L-25531 September 26, 1968 - ELENO T. SANGALANG, SR. v. HUGO H. CAINGAT

  • G.R. No. L-21299 September 27, 1968 - ANSELMA PENDON, ET AL. v. JOSE R. CABATUANDO

  • G.R. No. L-21183 September 27, 1968 - VICTORIAS MILLING, CO., INC. v. MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS

  • G.R. No. L-23991 September 27, 1968 - UNITED SEAMEN’S UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25222 September 27, 1968 - BESSIE M. GRAY, ET AL. v. VICENTE C. KIUNGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25226 September 27, 1968 - ISABELO PINZA v. TEOFILO ALDOVINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25790 September 27, 1968 - JOSE A. GARCIA v. ADELAIDA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-28493 September 27, 1968 - AGRIPINA J. VALDEZ, ET AL. v. ESTELA DIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29362 September 27, 1968 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23958 September 28, 1968 - EASTERN PAPER MILLS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU v. EASTERN PAPER MILLS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24489 September 28, 1968 - AUGUSTIN GRACILLA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24503 September 28, 1968 - IN RE: LO BENG HA ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24934 September 28, 1968 - J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. RAYMUNDO FAMILARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25359 September 28, 1968 - ARADA LUMUNGO, JUHURI DAWA, ET AL. v. ASAAD USMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25511 September 28, 1968 - PATRICIO S. CUNANAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28246 September 28, 1968 - ROGELIO PUREZA, ET AL. v. ALBERTO AVERIA

  • G.R. No. L-29532 September 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO OANDASAN

  • G.R. No. L-20993 September 28, 1968 - RIZAL LIGHT & ICE CO., INC. v. MUNICIPALITY OF MORONG, RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22110 September 28, 1968 - CRISTOBAL MARCOS, ET AL. v. MARIA JESUS DE ERQUIAGA DE BANUVAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23312 September 28, 1968 - JULIO GATLABAYAN, ET AL. v. EMILIANO C. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. L-23370-71 September 28, 1968 - TERESA FERRER, ET AL. v. CESARIO C. GOLEZ

  • G.R. No. L-23832 September 28, 1968 - PROCESO APOLEGA v. PERSEVERANDA HIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24155 September 28, 1968 - DELFIN SANTOS, ET AL. v. ROBERTO E. CHICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25133 September 28, 1968 - JOSE SANTIAGO v. CELSO ALIKPALA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25361 September 28, 1968 - LEONARDO NAVARRO v. LUIS L. LARDIZABAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29026 September 28, 1968 - PANTALEON PACIS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29471 September 28, 1968 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. JOAQUIN M. SALVADOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21544 September 30, 1968 - J.M TUASON & CO., INC. v. ATANACIO MUNAR

  • G.R. No. L-25051 September 30, 1968 - JOSE B. ROXAS, ET AL. v. PEDRO BERMUDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25150 September 30, 1968 - ANICIA CADIZ v. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, ET AL.