Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1985 > July 1985 Decisions > G.R. No. L-69730 July 11, 1985 - TRANQUILINO BALADIANG v. GREGORIO U. AQUILIZAN:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-69730. July 11, 1985.]

TRANQUILINO BALADIANG, Petitioner, v. HON. GREGORIO U. AQUILIZAN, Presiding Judge, Branch XVI, Regional Trial Court, Kabacan, North Cotabato, and RODOLFO SABADO, Attorney-In-Fact, Respondents.

Solema P. Jubilan for Petitioner.

Leon Aquino Miguel for Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


ABAD SANTOS, J.:


Petition to review the actuations of the respondent judge in Civil Case No. 5, Branch XVI of the Regional Trial Court of North Cotabato.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

Civil Case No. 6 (originally Civil Case No. 143) is for the recovery of possession of a piece of land alleged to have been illegally occupied by the defendant, the herein petitioner. The plaintiff is the private Respondent.

According to the petitioner the summons were served on May 6, 1968, not to him but to one Joel Bacus who is not a member of his family and by implication not authorized to receive the summons for him. The private respondent does not deny this allegation in his comment and it is therefor to be considered as factual.

On July 26, 1968, the plaintiff filed a motion to declare the defendant in default. The motion was not resolved. Subsequently the case was transferred from Cotabato City where it was originally filed to the Regional Trial Court in Kabacan, North Cotabato, where it is now.

On June 9, 1983, the respondent judge dismissed the case without prejudice for non-appearance of the parties after the case had been calendared for hearing. Parenthetically, the notice of the hearing was not served because the parties could not be contacted.

On November 9, 1984, Rodolfo Sabado (a non-lawyer) acting as attorney-in-fact for the plaintiff moved to reinstate the case. Reason: no notice of hearing had been received which accounts for plaintiff’s non-appearance. On the same date, the Court sent notice of hearing to the parties. Hearing was set on November 16, 1984.

The petitioner said he did not receive the notice of hearing which was instead served on one Perfecto Cano. The respondent does not contradict this allegation.

On November 26, 1984, the respondent judge granted the plaintiff’s motion to declare the defendant in default and ordered the plaintiff to present his evidence on December 14, 1984.cralawnad

On December 14, 1984, Atty. Solema P. Jubilan entered her appearance for the defendant and asked that the defendant be given a chance to answer the complaint. She alleged lack of notice to the defendant of previous proceedings. The respondent judge denied the motion for lack of service to the other party.

On the basis of the foregoing, the defendant has come to this Court on a petition for certiorari. He asks that the orders of the respondent judge be annulled.

In his comment the respondent judge states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"2. That said Certiorari is premature in the sense that there is a pending Motion for Reconsideration filed by the defendant but which was opposed by the plaintiff and the same had not been resolved as said Motion for Reconsideration has not as yet been calendared.

"3. It may be stated in passing that the respondent has no objection to the granting of the Motion for Reconsideration."cralaw virtua1aw library

What motion for reconsideration is pending? Both the petition and the comment of the private respondent state that the motion for reconsideration has been resolved; it has been denied.

We grant the petition because the record shows lack of notice to the defendant, now the petitioner, throughout the proceedings in the lower court. This is violative of procedural due process and shows poor court management.

WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The orders issued by the respondent judge are set aside and he is directed to see to it that the petitioner is properly served with summons. Costs against the private Respondent.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Escolin and Cuevas, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


Aquino, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I concur. The petitioner should be given 15 days from notice to answer the complaint.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1985 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-61617 July 2, 1985 - DR. TOLOMEO ZURBANO v. CONRADO ESTRELLA

  • G.R. No. L-50336 July 5, 1985 - NATIONAL UNION OF GARMENT TEXTILE CORDAGE AND GENERAL WORKERS OF THE PHILS. v. MINISTRY OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. L-57595 July 5, 1985 - UNITED CMC TEXTILE WORKERS UNION v. JACOBO C. CLAVE

  • G.R. No. L-68056 July 5, 1985 - BREN Z. GUIAO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. L-45588 July 8, 1985 - M/L NEGROS STAR v. ALFREDO PIO DE RODA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-54167 July 8, 1985 - GODOFREDO M. TRINCHERA v. FELIX F. EAMIGUEL

  • G.R. No. L-42225 July 9, 1985 - DOLORES DE MESA ABAD v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 68351-52 July 9, 1985 - CARLOS M. PADILLA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. L-44204 July 11, 1985 - BEATERIO DEL SANTISIMO ROSARIO DE MOLO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-63578 July 11, 1985 - PHIL. AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-69372 July 11, 1985 - MONTE DE PIEDAD & SAVINGS BANK v. MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

  • G.R. No. L-69416 July 11, 1985 - PANAY RAILWAYS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-69730 July 11, 1985 - TRANQUILINO BALADIANG v. GREGORIO U. AQUILIZAN

  • G.R. No. L-48667 July 12, 1985 - ANDRES PATALINGHUG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-31464 July 15, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-37798 July 15, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON DADAEG

  • G.R. No. L-38049 July 15, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFINO BELTRAN

  • G.R. No. L-43796 July 15, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO AGUDO

  • G.R. Nos. L-48930-40 July 15, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDELINO LAO

  • G.R. No. L-61134 July 15, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO BOCASAS

  • G.R. No. L-69899 July 15, 1985 - ROMMEL CORRO v. ESTEBAN LISING

  • G.R. No. L-37976 July 16, 1985 - PABLO R. ROMAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-44050 July 16, 1985 - CARMEN SIGUENZA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-65953 July 16, 1985 - SEAVAN CARRIER, INC. v. GTI SPORTSWEAR CORP.

  • G.R. No. L-31736 July 18, 1985 - ANTONIO FA. QUESADA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-60033 July 18, 1985 - TEOFISTO GUINGONA v. CITY FISCAL OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-59329 July 19, 1985 - EASTERN BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. HON. JOSE DANS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-61388 July 19, 1985 - JOSEFINA GARCIA-PADILLA v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE

  • G.R. No. L-68709 July 19, 1985 - NAPOLEON E. SANCIANGCO v. JOSE A. ROÑO

  • G.R. No. L-55798 July 20, 1985 - CORAZON S. SAYCO v. PHILIPPINE SUGAR COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-29352 July 22, 1985 - EMERITO M. RAMOS v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILS.

  • G.R. No. L-53354 July 22, 1985 - CARLOS BATINO, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. L-69500 July 22, 1985 - JOSE ANTONIO U. GONZALEZ v. MARIA KALAW KATIGBAK

  • G.R. No. L-52733 July 23, 1985 - PILAR DE GUZMAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-58512 July 23, 1985 - MANUEL I. SANTOS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. L-68393-94 July 23, 1985 - SANDOVAL SHIPYARDS, INC. v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-71171 July 23, 1985 - MARCIANA VDA. DE HOYO-A v. DOMINADOR VIRATA

  • G.R. No. L-66615 July 26, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO M. CAITOR

  • G.R. No. L-40095 July 19, 1985 - AMPARO F. LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. L-61915-16 July 29, 1985 - JOSE I. HERNANDEZ v. ROMEO D. MAGAT

  • G.R. No. L-62091 July 29, 1985 - FE MADRIDEO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-62251 July 29, 1985 - IRENE TAC-AN DANO v. COURT OF APPEALS