Professional Documents
Culture Documents
026 Republic vs. Hidalgo
026 Republic vs. Hidalgo
*
G.R. No. 161657. October 4, 2007.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
620
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165a6fdbc0b76e50fbb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/20
9/5/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
the law being to have every litigated case tried on its full merits,
the act of the respondent judge in rendering the default judgment
after an order of default was properly issued cannot be struck
down as a case of grave abuse of discretion. The term “grave abuse
of discretion,” in its juridical sense, connotes capricious, despotic,
oppressive or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction. The abuse must be of such degree as to
amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to
perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised
in a capricious manner. The word “capricious,” usually used in
tandem with “arbitrary,” conveys the notion of willful and
unreasoning action.
Same; Same; Same; The mere issuance by the trial court of the
order of default followed by a judgment by default can easily be
sustained as correct and doubtless within its jurisdiction.—Under
the premises, the mere issuance by the trial court of the order of
default followed by a judgment by default can easily be sustained
as correct and doubtless within its jurisdiction. Surely, a
disposition directing the Republic to pay an enormous sum
without the trial court hearing its side does not, without more,
vitiate, on due procedural ground, the validity of the default
judgment. The petitioner may have indeed been deprived of such
hearing, but this does not mean that its right to due process had
been violated. For, consequent to being declared in default, the
defaulting defendant is deemed to have waived his right to be
heard or to take part in the trial.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165a6fdbc0b76e50fbb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/20
9/5/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
621
GARCIA, J.:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165a6fdbc0b76e50fbb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/20
9/5/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
_______________
1 Page 12 of the Decision of the RTC of Manila, Br. 37; Rollo, p. 59.
623
2
further proceedings. On appeal, this Court,3
in G.R. No.
155231, sustained the CA’s reversal action.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165a6fdbc0b76e50fbb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/20
9/5/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
_______________
624
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165a6fdbc0b76e50fbb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/20
9/5/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
_______________
625
_______________
626
627
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165a6fdbc0b76e50fbb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/20
9/5/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
_______________
628
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165a6fdbc0b76e50fbb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/20
9/5/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
_______________
18 Roces v. Aportadera, Adm. Case No. 2936, March 31, 1995, 243 SCRA
108, citing cases.
19 First par. of Sec. 3
629
20
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165a6fdbc0b76e50fbb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/20
9/5/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
20
While the ideal lies in avoiding orders of default, the
policy of the law21being to have every litigated case tried on
its full merits, the act of the respondent judge in
rendering the default judgment after an order of default
was properly issued cannot be struck down as a case of
grave abuse of discretion.
The term “grave abuse of discretion,” in its juridical
sense, connotes capricious, despotic, oppressive or
whimsical exercise
22
of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. The abuse must be of such degree as to
amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal
to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is
exercised in a capricious manner. The word “capricious,”
usually used in tandem with “arbitrary,” 23
conveys the
notion of willful and unreasoning action.
Under the premises, the mere issuance by the trial court
of the order of default followed by a judgment by default
can easily be sustained as correct and doubtless within its
jurisdiction. Surely, a disposition directing the Republic to
pay an enormous sum without the trial court hearing its
side does not, without more, vitiate, on due procedural
ground, the validity of the default judgment. The petitioner
may have indeed been deprived of such hearing, but this
does not mean that its right to due process had been
violated. For, consequent to being declared in default, the
defaulting defendant is deemed to have waived his right to
be heard or to take part in the trial. The handling solicitors
simply squandered the Republic’s opportunity to be heard.
But more importantly, the
_______________
20 Citibank, N.A. v. Chua, G.R. No. 102300, March 17, 1993, 220 SCRA
75.
21 Lesaca v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96432, October 21, 1992, 215
SCRA 17, citing Coombs v. Santos, 24 Phil. 446 (1913).
22 Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. 1, 8th Revised Edition,
p. 718, citing Benito v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 134913, Jan. 19,
2001, 349 SCRA 705.
23 Olanolan v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 165491, March 31,
2005, 454 SCRA 807, citing cases.
630
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165a6fdbc0b76e50fbb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/20
9/5/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
_______________
24 Section 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion for new trial or
reconsideration.—x x x (a) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against and
by reason of which such aggrieved party has probably been impaired in
his right; or (b) Newly discovered evidence … .
25 Supra note 14.
631
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165a6fdbc0b76e50fbb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/20
9/5/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
“In the case at bar, it is clear that the motion for new trial filed on
the fifteenth (15th) day after the decision was received on August
29, 2003 was denied and the moving party has only the remaining
period from notice of notice of denial within which to file a notice
of appeal. x x x
Accordingly, when defendants [Republic et al.] filed their
motion for new trial on the last day of the fifteen day (15)
prescribed for taking an appeal, which motion was subsequently
denied, they had one (1) day from receipt of a copy of the order
denying … new trial within which to perfect [an] appeal … . Since
defendants had received a copy of the order denying their motion
for new trial on 09 October 2003, reckoned from that date, they
only have one (1) day left within which to file the notice of appeal.
But instead of doing so, the defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration which was later declared by the Court as pro
forma motion in the Order dated 25 November 2003. The
running of the prescriptive period, therefore, can not be
interrupted by a pro forma motion. Hence the filing of the notice
of appeal on 27 November 2007 came much too late 26for by then
the judgment had already become final and executory. (Words in
bracket added; Emphasis in the original.)”
_______________
632
_______________
633
land who, during the early days of the martial law regime,
lost possession thereof to the Government which
appropriated the same for some public use, but without
going through the legal process of expropriation, let alone
paying such owner just compensation.
The Court cannot, however, stop with just restoring the
private respondent to her possession and ownership of her
property. The restoration ought to be complemented by
some form of monetary compensation for having been
unjustly deprived of the beneficial use thereof, but not,
however, in the varying amounts and level fixed in the
assailed decision of the trial court and set to be executed by
the equally assailed writ of execution. The Court finds the
monetary award set forth therein to be erroneous. And the
error relates to basic fundamentals of law as to constitute
grave abuse of discretion.
As may be noted, private respondent fixed the assessed
value of her Arlegui property at P2,388,990.00. And in
the prayer portion of her third amended complaint for
recovery, she asked to be restored to the possession of her
property and that the petitioner be ordered to pay her, as
reasonable compensation or rental use or occupancy
thereof, the sum of P500,000.00 a month, or P6 Million a
year, with a five percent (5%) yearly increase plus interest
at the legal rate beginning July 1975. From July 1975
when the PSG allegedly took over the subject property to
July 2003, a month before the trial court rendered
judgment, or a period of 28 years, private respondent’s total
rental claim would, per the OSG’s computation, only
amount to P371,440,426.00. In its assailed decision,
however, the trial court ordered the petitioner to pay
private respondent the total amount of over P1.48 Billion
or the mind-boggling amount of P1,480,627,688.00, to be
exact, representing the reasonable rental for the property,
the interest rate thereon at the legal rate and the
opportunity cost. This figure is on top of the
P143,600,000.00 which represents
634
_______________
635
_______________
636
36
The assailed trial court’s issuance of the writ of execution
against government funds to satisfy its money judgment is
also nullified. It is basic that government funds and
properties may not be seized under writs of 37
execution or
garnishment
38
to satisfy such judgments. Republic v.
Palacio teaches that a judgment against the State
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165a6fdbc0b76e50fbb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/20
9/5/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
_______________
637
638
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165a6fdbc0b76e50fbb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/20
9/5/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 534
——o0o——
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165a6fdbc0b76e50fbb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/20