Lagon vs. Velasco

The mandatory submission of judicial affidavits by defendants before the pre-trial conference under Section 2 of A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC (Judicial Affidavit Rule) does not violate due process or conflict with the rule on demurrer to evidence, as it merely dispenses with direct testimonies while preserving the defendant's right to move for dismissal based on the insufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence after the latter rests.

Sometime in December 2000, petitioner Armando Lagon obtained a cash loan of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 300,000.00) from private respondent Gabriel Dizon. In payment thereof, Lagon issued PCIBank Check No. 0064914, postdated January 12, 2001. Upon presentment, the check was dishonored for being drawn against insufficient funds. Despite a demand letter dated May 6, 2011, Lagon refused to pay, prompting Dizon to file a Complaint for Sum of Money, Damages and Attorney's Fees on June 6, 2011. Lagon interposed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of prescription, which was opposed by Dizon who subsequently amended his complaint to allege earlier demands. Lagon filed his Answer asserting payment, and the case proceeded to preliminary conference where the parties were directed to file pre-trial briefs.

• The Loan and Dishonored Check: Sometime in December 2000, petitioner Armando Lagon obtained a cash loan of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 300,000.00) from private respondent Gabriel Dizon. In payment thereof, Lagon issued PCIBank Check No. 0064914, postdated January 12, 2001, for the same amount. When Dizon presented the check for payment, it was dishonored for being drawn against insufficient funds.
• Demand and Refusal to Pay: On May 6, 2011, Dizon sent a letter to Lagon demanding payment of the Php 300,000.00 obligation. Lagon refused to pay despite the demand.
• Commencement of Action: On June 6, 2011, Dizon filed a Complaint for Sum of Money, Damages and Attorney's Fees against Lagon before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Koronadal, South Cotabato.
• Defendant's Initial Defenses: On October 8, 2011, Lagon filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of prescription. Dizon filed an Opposition with Motion to Amend Complaint, averring in his Amended Complaint that he sent two demand letters dated March 23, 2010 and May 6, 2011 through JRS Express. On February 29, 2012, Lagon filed his Answer asserting that he had paid the loan.
• Pre-Trial Proceedings: During the preliminary conference, the parties were directed to file their respective pre-trial briefs within five days from receipt of the trial court's order. On August 9, 2012, Judge Velasco issued a Pre-Trial Conference Order.
• The Assailed Order: At the initial trial on June 6, 2013, neither party submitted their judicial affidavits or those of their witnesses. Judge Velasco issued the assailed Order dated June 6, 2013, allowing Dizon to submit judicial affidavits but imposing a fine of Three Thousand Pesos (Php 3,000.00) and requiring reimbursement of Five Thousand Pesos (Php 5,000.00) to the defendant for expenses incurred in coming to Court. The Order directed both parties to submit judicial affidavits of their witnesses within five days prior to the trial dates, with the warning that the Court would no longer admit the same otherwise. Lagon received a copy of this Order on June 26, 2013.
• Motion for Reconsideration: On June 27, 2013, Lagon filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, requesting that he be allowed to submit the judicial affidavit of his witnesses only after the plaintiff had adduced his evidence. Lagon claimed that Section 2 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule, which mandates submission of judicial affidavits before the pre-trial or preliminary conference, violated his right to due process and was therefore unconstitutional.
• Denial of Reconsideration: On July 10, 2013, Judge Velasco issued an Order denying Lagon's Motion for Partial Reconsideration, opining that the requirement under Section 2 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule was not violative of due process.

• Due Process Violation: Petitioner maintained that Section 2 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule is unconstitutional because it violates the right to due process of law. The requirement that defendants submit judicial affidavits before the pre-trial conference allegedly forces the defendant to adduce evidence simultaneously with the plaintiff.
• Conflict with Demurrer to Evidence: Petitioner argued that the Rule conflicts with the rule on Demurrer to Evidence, which grants defendants the right to opt out of presenting evidence and instead move for dismissal upon the plaintiff's failure to show a right to relief. The mandatory submission of affidavits allegedly strips defendants of the "due process right not to be compelled to adduce evidence."
• Violation of Order of Trial: Petitioner contended that the Judicial Affidavit Rule violates the order of trial provided under the Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Denial of Right to Present Adverse Witnesses: Petitioner asserted that the Rule denies litigants the right to present adverse, hostile, or unwilling witnesses, or to secure testimonies by deposition upon oral examination or written interrogatories, because the party cannot secure their judicial affidavits.

• Absence of Grave Abuse of Discretion: Respondent Dizon countered that no grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed against Judge Velasco for merely enforcing rules promulgated by the Supreme Court. The Judicial Affidavit Rule was designed to address case congestion and delays in court proceedings.
• Preservation of Procedural Rights: Respondent argued that the Rule actually preserves and respects litigants' procedural rights, as due process merely contemplates notice to the party and an opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered. Lagon was accorded both notice and opportunity to be heard when ordered to submit judicial affidavits.
• Availability of Demurrer: Respondent pointed out that the Judicial Affidavit Rule does not prevent Lagon from filing a demurrer to evidence if he believes the plaintiff's evidence is insufficient.

• Constitutionality of the Judicial Affidavit Rule: Whether Section 2 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule, which requires a defendant to submit judicial affidavits before the pre-trial or preliminary conference, offends the right to due process of law.
• Conflict with Demurrer to Evidence: Whether the requirement to submit judicial affidavits before trial conflicts with the rule on Demurrer to Evidence and the order of trial under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

• No Grave Abuse of Discretion: Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction was not committed by Judge Velasco in issuing the assailed Order. The issuance of the order constituted faithful observance of the Judicial Affidavit Rule promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to its constitutional rule-making power under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution, and cannot be regarded as capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary.
• No Conflict with Demurrer to Evidence: No conflict exists between the Judicial Affidavit Rule and the rule on Demurrer to Evidence. Both rules serve to abbreviate judicial proceedings and expedite the termination of actions. The Judicial Affidavit Rule dispenses with direct testimony to reduce trial time, while the Demurrer to Evidence allows early resolution if the plaintiff fails to prove his case. A defendant may still file a demurrer after the plaintiff rests, and in resolving the demurrer, only the plaintiff's evidence is considered and weighed.
• No Due Process Violation: The mandatory submission of judicial affidavits before trial does not constitute a deprivation of due process. Due process requires only notice and an opportunity to be heard, both of which were accorded to Lagon. Moreover, defendants are already required under Rule 18, Section 6 of the Rules of Court to submit pre-trial briefs stating the names of witnesses and the substance of their testimonies; the submission of judicial affidavits is consistent with this requirement and aids in preparing opposing arguments.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Grave abuse of discretion pertains to a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility. Mere abuse of discretion is insufficient; it must be grave.
• Judicial Affidavit Rule: Pursuant to A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, parties are required to file with the court and serve on the adverse party, not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing, the judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the place of such witnesses' direct testimonies. Failure to comply results in waiver of submission, though the court may allow late submission upon valid cause shown, subject to monetary penalties.
• Demurrer to Evidence: A demurrer to evidence is an objection or exception by one of the parties to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law to make out his case or sustain the issue. It challenges the sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence to sustain a verdict and grants the defendant an option to seek dismissal should the plaintiff fail to establish his right to relief.
• Due Process in Civil Procedure: Due process of law in civil cases contemplates notice to the party and an opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered. It does not require that a defendant be allowed to withhold evidence until after the plaintiff rests as a matter of right, provided the defendant has the opportunity to challenge the sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence through appropriate procedural mechanisms.

• "Its principal office is to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction." — On the function of certiorari under Rule 65.
• "The term grave abuse of discretion pertains to a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross 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 an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility." — Defining grave abuse of discretion.
• "Seeking to eradicate the scourge of long-drawn protracted litigations, and address case congestion and delays in court... the Court en banc promulgated A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, or the Judicial Affidavit Rule." — Stating the purpose of the Rule.
• "Clearly, both the Judicial Affidavit Rule and Demurrer to Evidence can co-exist harmoniously as tools for a more efficient and speedy administration of trial procedures." — On the compatibility of the two procedural mechanisms.
• "It cannot be overemphasized that when the rules are clear, magistrates are mandated to apply them." — On judicial duty to enforce procedural rules.

• Tan v. Spouses Antazo, 659 Phil. 400 (2011) — Cited for the principle that certiorari is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
• Ng Meng Tam v. China Banking Corporation, 765 Phil. 979 (2015) — Referenced regarding the need to address delays in litigation.
• Heirs of Pedro Pasag v. Spouses Parocha, 550 Phil. 571 (2007) — Cited for the definition of demurrer to evidence as an objection that the evidence produced is insufficient in point of law to make out a case.
• CMTC International Marketing Corporation v. Bhagis International Trading Corp., 700 Phil. 575 (2012) — Cited for the principle that procedural rules should be treated with utmost respect and due regard as they are designed to facilitate adjudication and remedy delay.

• Article VIII, Section 5(5), 1987 Constitution — Bestows upon the Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts.
• A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC (Judicial Affidavit Rule), Section 2 — Mandates that parties file with the court and serve on the adverse party, not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing, the judicial affidavits of their witnesses and documentary evidence.
• A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC (Judicial Affidavit Rule), Section 10 — Provides that failure to comply with Section 2 results in waiver of submission, but allows late submission upon valid cause shown, subject to fines of not less than One Thousand Pesos nor more than Five Thousand Pesos.
• Rule 65, Revised Rules of Court — Governs petitions for certiorari, limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
• Rule 18, Section 6, Rules of Court — Requires parties to submit pre-trial briefs containing, among others, the number and names of witnesses and the substance of their testimonies.

Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Diosdado M. Peralta, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, and Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa (on official business).