Court Opinion

ID: 9759241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:10:01.796916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:00.439666
License: Public Domain

CANTU, Justice,
concurring.
I agree that the writ of mandamus should be denied because relator waived any right to complain of the trial court’s action by failing to comply with the procedure set out in Weisel Enterprises, Inc. v. Curry, 718 S.W.2d 56, 57-59 (Tex.1986), and Peeples v. Honorable Fourth Supreme Judicial District, 701 S.W.2d 635, 637 (Tex.1985).
Relator admits that she was not prepared to produce any of the exhibits for inspection by the trial court. This should suffice as reason to deny the writ.
I am, however, troubled by the allegation in relator’s petition that she was not accorded the benefit of a meaningful hearing by the trial court. Such a contention, if true, reflects a violation of the most basic of due process guarantees and deserves more serious consideration than the cursory treatment given it by the majority opinion.
The allegations in the petition are that the trial court refused to permit argument or evidence and that it further made its ruling within a period of two minutes without benefit of reviewing the pleadings. If such was the case, I can conceive of no greater showing of an abuse of discretion, *257without regard to whether the end result was correct.
Respondent’s sworn answer does not deny relator’s allegations but merely alleges that the petition for injunction (second motion for protective order) was set for a hearing and was denied.
In mandamus proceedings an answer neither admitting nor denying a fact is an admission of that fact. Giraud v. Winslow, 127 S.W. 1180 (Tex.Civ.App.—1910), rev’d on other grounds, 104 Tex. 318, 137 S.W. 917 (1911).
The order sought to be set aside by relator recites that a hearing was held and that a review of the pleadings on file preceded the ruling by the Court.
The majority invokes the rule that the recitals in a judgment are conclusive and cannot be contradicted on the basis of relator’s affidavit alone. See Leuer v. Smith, 335 S.W.2d 775 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1960, no writ).
However, such a rule is of general application when an attack upon the judgment is collateral. See generally, 48 Tex.Jur.3d Judgments, § 332 et seq (1986).
As recognized by the majority, the instant proceeding was brought exclusively for the purpose of setting aside the order entered below by the trial court. It has been said that a direct attack on a judgment is an attempt to correct, reform, vacate or nullify it in a proceeding instituted for that purpose either in the court which pronounced the judgment or in some higher court. See cases collated under footnote 1, 48 Tex.Jur.3d Judgments, § 166 (1986) (at p. 15).
Although a procedure seeking mandamus may take the form of either a collateral attack or a direct attack, Garcia v. State, 290 S.W.2d 555 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1956, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Ham v. Garvey, 155 S.W.2d 976 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1941, no writ), it is clear that the instant proceeding is in the nature of a direct attack. For that reason alone the majority should not resort to the rule concerning the conclusiveness of judgments.
As the allegations in relator’s petition were not contradicted and because the rule of conclusiveness is not applicable to a proceeding in the nature of a direct attack I would not suggest, however indirect, that a petitioner seeking to vacate an order of a lower tribunal will always be foreclosed by a rule set in concrete.
In the case before us it is sufficient that relator concedes she did not show entitlement to the writ. However, for the foregoing reasons, I disassociate myself from any reference in the majority opinion which purports to foreclose a challenge based upon alleged due process violations simply because a rule, not without criticism, see Norwood v. Cobb, 24 Tex. 551 (1859), has long held to do so upon public policy considerations. See Treadway v. Eastburn, 57 Tex. 209 (1882).
I concur in the denial of the writ of mandamus for the reasons expressed.