G.R. No. L-13014; September 30, 1959
JOSE RUEDA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, and FELIX S. DAVID, respondents.

FACTS

On March 21, 1957, landowner Felix S. David filed an ejectment petition against his tenant, Jose Rueda, in the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR Case No. 276-Pampanga). David alleged that despite receiving 4 cavans of palay for seedlings and P160.00 for transplanting expenses, Rueda neglected to plant on more than one hectare of the 5-hectare landholding, causing damage. Rueda, in his answer, claimed his failure was due to causes beyond his control—destruction of seedlings by rats and worms and lack of water—and that David’s overseer did nothing despite being informed.
After the landowner presented his evidence on April 26 and May 20, 1957, the case was set for the tenant’s evidence on May 27, 1957. Rueda’s counsel obtained a postponement to June 4, 1957, with the court warning that no further postponements would be entertained. On June 4, neither Rueda nor his counsel appeared; another attorney sent by counsel moved for another postponement, arguing that the order setting the hearing was received only on June 3. The court denied the motion, ordered the submission of memoranda, and subsequently deemed the case submitted for decision. Rueda’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
On July 2, 1957, the CAR rendered judgment, finding Rueda guilty of negligence for not planting 1½ hectares despite receiving expenses, which impaired the land’s productive capacity, and authorized his ejectment. The decision became final and a writ of execution was issued on August 12, 1957. On October 15, 1957, Rueda filed this original action for certiorari with preliminary injunction, alleging the CAR acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the postponement, depriving him of his day in court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Agrarian Relations acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for postponement of the June 4, 1957 hearing and in considering the case submitted for decision.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari, ruling that the CAR did not act with grave abuse of discretion.
First, the Court held that the CAR had jurisdiction over both the subject matter (ejectment of a tenant) and the parties. Any error in denying the motion for postponement was an error of judgment, not an error of jurisdiction, and thus not correctible by certiorari.
Second, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The CAR had already granted two postponements (on May 20 and May 27, 1957), the maximum generally allowed under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 1267 , as amended. The order of May 27 explicitly warned that no further postponement would be granted. The reason given for the third postponement—counsel’s alleged late receipt of the order and inability to notify the client—did not constitute any of the “special or similar reasons” required by law for subsequent postponements (e.g., illness of an indispensable witness, materiality of evidence). Counsel’s failure to personally contact the client, despite knowing that mailed letters were being returned, and the client’s own lack of diligence in following up his case, rendered the denial of the motion justified and not arbitrary, capricious, or despotic.
Third, the Court noted that certiorari was not the proper remedy. Petitioner could have availed himself of an appeal or a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, but he failed to do so within the prescribed periods. The loss of the right to appeal due to petitioner’s negligence, and the filing of the certiorari petition two months after the writ of execution, constituted laches.
Therefore, the petition was devoid of merit and was dismissed, with costs against petitioner Jose Rueda.