ARMANDO LAGON, Petitioner, v. HON. DENNIS A.

VELASCO, IN HIS CAPACITY

AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES OF KORONADAL,
SOUTH COTABATO, AND GABRIEL DIZON, Respondents.

G.R. No. 208424, February 14, 2018

REYES, JR., J.:

Facts:
Armando Lagon obtained a cash loan from Gabriel Dizon. In order to pay his debt, he
issued a check. However, when it was presented for payment, it was dishonored.
Eleven (11) years later, Dizon sent a letter demanding payment from Lagon but the
latter refused to pay. A complaint for sum of money was filed against Lagon. Lagon filed
a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of prescription. Dizon opposed the motion averring
that he already sent 2 demand letters. Lagon asserts he has paid the loan.

During the preliminary conference, the parties were directed to file their respective pre-
trial briefs. At the initial trial, neither of the parties submitted their judicial affidavits or
those of their witnesses so Judge Velasco issued the order requiring the parties to
submit the same. Lagon filed a motion requesting that he be allowed to submit the
judicial affidavit after the plaintfill have adduced his evidence. Lagon claimed that the
Judicial Affidavit Rule is violative of his right to due process because it conflicts with the
rule on Demurrer to Evidence, which grants a defendant the right to opt out of
presenting evidence, and instead move for the dismissal of the complaint upon the
failure of the plaintiff to show a right to relief. Judge Velasco denied the motion and said
that rule is not violative of Lagon's right to due process.

Issue:
Whether or not Section 2 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule is violative of the right to due
process of law

Ruling:
No. There is nothing in the provisions of the Judicial Affidavit Rule, which prohibits a
defendant from filing a demurrer to evidence, if he truly believes that the evidence
adduced by the plaintiff is insufficient. Besides, in the resolution of the demurrer to
evidence, only the evidence presented by the plaintiff shall be considered and weighed
by the Court. Moreover, 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 one hand, the Judicial Affidavit Rule simply dispenses with the direct testimony,
thereby reducing the time at which a case stands for trial, in the same way that the
Demurrer to Evidence abbreviates proceedings by allowing the defendant to seek for an
early resolution of the case should the plaintiff be unable to sufficiently prove his
complaint. These rules do not conflict, and when used hand in hand will lead to an
efficient administration of the trial

Furthermore, the fact that the defendant is mandated to submit his judicial affidavit prior
to the trial and before the plaintiff has rested his case is not a cumbersome requirement
or a circumvention of due process. On the contrary, this is necessary for the orderly
administration of the proceeding before the courts.
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS (BOC), REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER ALBERTO D.
LINA, AND DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT-PROCUREMENT
SERVICE, (DBM-PS), REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JOSE TOMAS C.
SYQUIA, Petitioners, v. HON. PAULINO Q. GALLEGOS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, BRANCH 47, AND THE
PURPORTED JOINT VENTURE OF OMNIPRIME MARKETING, INC. AND
INTRASOFT INTERNATIONAL, INC., REPRESENTED BY ANNABELLE A.
MARGAROLI, Respondents.

G.R. No. 220832, February 28, 2018

TIJAM, J.:

Facts:
The ASEAN signed the protocol to Establish and Implement the ASEAN Single Window
(ASW Protocol). Phase 1 of the Philippines National Single Windows (NSW) based
projects was completed on 2010. Thereafter, Phase 2 (PSNW 2) was undertaken.
Utilizing the funds appropriated by congress, Bureau of Customs (BOC) invited
prospective bidders for the competitive bidding of the PNSW 2. Among the bidders that
submitted the eligibility documents were: (1) the private respondent; and (2) E-Konek &
ILS & FS JV, whose biggest shareholder is Alberto D. Lina. After the evaluation and
determination of shortlisted bidders, the private respondent was invited for negotiation
as the highest bidder.

Sometime later, Lina was appointed as BOC commissioner. He then requested for the
discontinuance of the procurement process of the PNSW 2 project in line with the
Government Procurement Reform Act. Acting upon Commissioner Lina's request,
Director Syquia aborted the bidding process for PNSW 2 project. Private respondent
then moved for a reconsideration but the same was denied. Private respondent then
filed a petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction (WPPI) and
Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction (WPMI), before the RTC against the
petitioners.

The Regional Trial Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order in favor of the private
respondent. The RTC issued the assailed Omnibus Order, granting private respondent's
application for the issuance of an injunctive writ. The BOC dispensing with the filing of a
motion for reconsideration or any form of redress in the court a quo, filed this instant
petition.

Issue:
Whether Judge Paulino Q. Gallegos (respondent Judge) gravely abused in his
discretion when he issued the omnibus order and the injunctive writ
Ruling:
No. Certiorari under Rule 65 inherently requires the filing of a motion for
reconsideration, which is the tangible representation of the opportunity given to the
office to correct itself. Likewise, the direct filing of this petition in this Court is in
disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. The concurrence of jurisdiction among
the Supreme Court, CA and the RTC to issue the writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction did not give petitioners the
unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. Absent any showing of any special,
important or compelling reason to justify the direct filing of the petition will cause the
dismissal of the recourse

Even if petitioners' direct resort to this Court is allowed, the dismissal of their petition
remains. It must be shown that the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of
discretion, or more specifically, that he exercised his power arbitrarily or despotically
when he issued the omnibus order and the WPI. Petitioners, however, failed in this
respect.

The authority to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus involves the
exercise of original jurisdiction which must be expressly conferred by Constitution or by
law. The RTC had the original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any
part of its respective region.

Furthermore, the petitioners failed to show that respondent Judge gravely abused his
discretion when he issued the injunctive writ, pursuant to his omnibus order. In Medina
v. Greenfield Dev't. Corp., the Court reiterated the following requisites to be entitled to
an injunctive writ: (1) a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right to be protected;
(2) a violation of that right; (3) that there is an urgent and permanent act and urgent
necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.

In the case at bar, private respondent as the declared highest bidder, has a right under
R.A. No. 9184 and its IRR to be awarded the contract. Moreover, private respondent's
right was violated due to the issuance of the Director Syquia's Notice of Cancellation for
the right to reject any bid must be read in conjunction with the "justifiable ground'
defined in Section 41.1 of R.A. No. 9184's IRR. Lastly, there is an urgent necessity to
preserve the status quo, considering that the unjustified cancellation would put to
naught private respondent's considerable resources, time and efforts in order to hurdle
the rigorous requirements in the Bidding Documents.