Case Digest (G.R. No. L-69730)
Facts:
The case involves Tranquilino Baladiang as the petitioner and Hon. Gregorio U. Aquilizan, the Presiding Judge of Branch XVI of the Regional Trial Court in Kabacan, North Cotabato, along with Rodolfo Sabado, who acted as the attorney-in-fact for the private respondent. The events leading to this case began with Civil Case No. 5 (originally Civil Case No. 143), which was filed for the recovery of possession of a piece of land allegedly occupied illegally by Baladiang. The summons for this case were served on May 6, 1968, but not to Baladiang himself; instead, they were delivered to Joel Bacus, a person not related to Baladiang and not authorized to receive the summons on his behalf. The private respondent did not contest this assertion in his comments, thus it was accepted as a fact. On July 26, 1968, the private respondent filed a motion to declare Baladiang in default, but this motion remained unresolved. The case was subsequently transferred from Cotabato City to the Regiona...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-69730)
Facts:
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.
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.
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.
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:
- Whether the respondent judge violated procedural due process by failing to ensure proper notice to the petitioner throughout the proceedings.
- Whether the respondent judge's actions constituted poor court management.
- Whether the petition for certiorari was premature given the alleged pending motion for reconsideration.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)