June 22, 2020
HELEN L. SAY, GILDA L. SAY, HENRY L. SAY, AND DANNY L. SAY, PETITIONERS,
VS.
GABRIEL DIZON, RESPONDENT.
PERLAS-BERNABE, _J.
Parties in the case:
Respondent: Gabriel Dizon
Petitioners: Robert Dizon and others
Events before filing an appeal to the Supreme Court:
1. Respondent filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of the Deed of Absolute Sale against Robert
Dizon and petitioners before the RTC, docketed as Civil Case Number 1973-24.
2. The RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground of forum shopping because respondent had filed a
similar complaint involving the same subject matter.
3. After the dismissal order attained finality, petitioners filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Leave of
Court to Set Defendants' Counterclaim for Hearing.
4. The RTC set the case for hearing on March 13, 2014, and petitioners filed their Judicial Affidavits
one day before the scheduled hearing, which was beyond the five-day period prescribed by the
Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR).
5. The RTC admitted the Judicial Affidavits despite being filed late, citing the principle that
technicalities must give way to substantial justice.
6. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the RTC, but the court modified
its earlier order by imposing a fine of P2,500.00 on petitioners for their late submission.
7. Respondent filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Court of
Appeals.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
The Court of Appeals found that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in admitting the belatedly
filed Judicial Affidavits of petitioners without proof of compliance with the conditions laid down
under Section 10 (a) of the JAR.
The CA set aside the RTC's orders and held that petitioners failed to show valid reasons for the
delay and failed to prove that the late submission would not unduly prejudice the opposing party.
Issues to be resolved by the Supreme Court:
Whether the RTC erred in admitting the belatedly filed Judicial Affidavits of petitioners without
proof of compliance with the conditions laid down under Section 10 (a) of the JAR.
Whether the CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC.
Points in the ruling of the Supreme Court:
1. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that the admission of Judicial Affidavits beyond the
prescribed period may be allowed once certain conditions are met, including valid reasons for the
delay and absence of undue prejudice to the opposing party.
2. The Court found that petitioners' delay in filing the Judicial Affidavits was an honest procedural
mistake, and they submitted the affidavits before the scheduled hearing, demonstrating no
deliberate intention to flout the rules.
3. While petitioners failed to comply strictly with the JAR, the admission of their Judicial
Affidavits would not unduly prejudice respondent, as the latter still had the opportunity to
present rebuttal evidence.
4. The Court emphasized the need to reconcile the demands of substantial justice with procedural rules
and held that the RTC did not act arbitrarily or whimsically in admitting the Judicial Affidavits.
5. Therefore, the CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC, and the
Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA's decision and reinstating the RTC's orders.
Governing laws: Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR), Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Decision: The petition is granted, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The orders
of the Regional Trial Court are reinstated.
