Title
Baladiang vs. Aquilizan
Case
G.R. No. L-69730
Decision Date
Jul 11, 1985
Petitioner challenged improper summons service and lack of notice in land possession case; Supreme Court ruled due process violated, nullified orders, and mandated proper notice.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-69730)

Facts:

  1. Case Background:

    • The case involves a petition for review of the actions of the respondent judge in Civil Case No. 5, Branch XVI of the Regional Trial Court of North Cotabato.
    • The original case (Civil Case No. 143) was for the recovery of possession of a piece of land allegedly illegally occupied by the petitioner, Tranquilino Baladiang.
    • The plaintiff in the case is the private respondent, represented by Rodolfo Sabado, an attorney-in-fact.
  2. Service of Summons:

    • The summons were served on May 6, 1968, not to the petitioner but to one Joel Bacus, who was not a member of the petitioner's family and, by implication, not authorized to receive the summons.
    • The private respondent did not deny this allegation, and it was treated as a factual matter.
  3. Procedural History:

    • On July 26, 1968, the plaintiff filed a motion to declare the defendant in default, but the motion was not resolved.
    • The case was later transferred from Cotabato City to the Regional Trial Court in Kabacan, North Cotabato.
    • On June 9, 1983, the respondent judge dismissed the case without prejudice due to the non-appearance of the parties. The notice of hearing was not served because the parties could not be contacted.
    • On November 9, 1984, Rodolfo Sabado (a non-lawyer) moved to reinstate the case, citing the lack of notice of hearing as the reason for the plaintiff's non-appearance.
    • The court sent a notice of hearing to the parties, but the petitioner claimed he did not receive it. Instead, it was served on one Perfecto Cano.
    • On November 26, 1984, the respondent judge granted the plaintiff's motion to declare the defendant in default and ordered the plaintiff to present evidence on December 14, 1984.
    • On December 14, 1984, Atty. Solema P. Jubilan appeared for the defendant and requested that the defendant be given a chance to answer the complaint, citing lack of notice of previous proceedings. The respondent judge denied the motion for lack of service to the other party.
  4. Petition for Certiorari:

    • The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, seeking to annul the orders of the respondent judge.
    • The respondent judge stated in his comment that the petition was premature because a pending motion for reconsideration had not been resolved. However, both the petition and the private respondent's comment indicated that the motion for reconsideration had already been denied.

Issue:

  1. Whether the respondent judge violated procedural due process by failing to ensure proper notice to the petitioner throughout the proceedings.
  2. Whether the respondent judge's actions constituted poor court management.
  3. Whether the petition for certiorari was premature given the alleged pending motion for reconsideration.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.