Bengzon v. General

MORAN, J.:

Petitioner Mario Bengzon moves for the reconsideration of the decision of this Court in G.R. No. 46650, promulgated September 23, 1939, on the ground that he has not been accorded an opportunity to be heard. The record discloses, and the petitioner so admits, that on May 19, 1939, he was advised of the resolution of this Court of May 18, 1939 wherein it was ordered that the case "be included in the next court calendar." The rules of this Court, of which the petitioner must necessarily be charged notice, specify the date when the calendars shall be called and cases assigned for hearing.

(Rule 30, Supreme Court.) Not having appeared at the date specified in said rules, petitioner is deemed to have waived his right to hearing and to have submitted the case for decision without argument. Petitioner urges certain matters obviously foreign to the issue involved in his petition for mandamus. This Court denied the petition upon the sole ground that, in the light of the circumstances under which the respondents Auditor General and Commissioner of Civil Service have acted, they cannot be said to have neglected to perform the duties enjoined to them by law in refusing to pay said petitioner the gratuity in question.

Nothing has been said with respect to the validity and enforceability of the power of attorney, it being a matter proper to be determined, not in an action for mandamus against the Auditor General and Commissioner of Civil Service, but in an ordinary action in courts of general jurisdiction, wherein both parties may introduce evidence thereon. Pronouncements have been cautiously avoided which might in any way be construed to close the doors to the petitioner and Protacio Clarin in the vindication of their respective claims against one another in the proper action or proceeding. The rights to which the conflicting claimants are entitled are in no wise foreclosed by the decision of this court.

Petitioner alleges that this Court has not made a careful study of the pleadings and all the issues involved in the case. In every litigation, courts have decide no more than the real issues of the case and are not bound to follow every collateral matter that parties may choose to urge. It should be observed that remarks of this nature certainly are not only unwarranted, but may constitute a sufficient ground for disciplinary action.

No such action, however, need be taken in this respect under the circumstances except to make the admonition that, while attorneys may tolerably conduct their case with utmost zeal and earnestness, they should, however, always guard against such excesses of passion as would render them oblivious of their duties of respect and loyalty to the Court of which they are officers. Motion for reconsideration is denied. Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.