Sagarino v. Pelayo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Bonifacio Sagarino and Bibiana Cortez were tenants of Inocentes Pelayo on a parcel of land. In September 1963, Pelayo filed an ejectment case (CAR Case No. 492-Cebu '63) against Sagarino and Cortez for refusing to recognize him as landholder. Sagarino and Cortez filed an answer with a counterclaim. Procedural History: The Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) set the case for pre-trial. Notices were sent to the counsels for both parties, but not to the parties personally. For failure of Sagarino and his counsel to appear at the pre-trial on March 2, 1965, Sagarino was declared in default upon motion of Pelayo's counsel, and Pelayo was allowed to present evidence ex parte. The CAR rendered a decision on March 26, 1965, ordering Sagarino's ejectment. The decision became final and executory, and a writ of execution was issued. The Petition: Bonifacio Sagarino filed a new action (CAR Case No. 601-Cebu '65) seeking the annulment of the proceedings in CAR Case No. 492-Cebu '63. Sagarino argued that the CAR had no authority to declare him in default as he was not personally served with notice of the pre-trial, rendering all proceedings null and void. The CAR dismissed Sagarino's action, holding that he should have availed of remedies under Rule 38 or appealed the decision in the original case. The CAR also noted non-compliance with Rule 38 requisites if the complaint were treated as a petition for relief. The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court as it involved a purely legal question.
Issue(s)
Whether notice of a pre-trial conference must be served separately upon the party and his counsel of record. Whether the declaration of default and subsequent proceedings in CAR Case No. 492-Cebu '63 were valid despite the lack of personal notice of the pre-trial to the defendant Bonifacio Sagarino.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the resolutions of the trial court dismissing CAR Case No. 601-Cebu '65 and denying the motion for reconsideration. It ordered the reopening and reinstatement of CAR Case No. 492-Cebu '63, with the parties to be served notice of a prior pre-trial conference separately. The Court also ordered the plaintiff in CAR Case No. 492-Cebu '63 to deliver possession of the land and improvements to the defendant, Bonifacio Sagarino.
Ratio Decidendi
On the requirement of notice for pre-trial conference: The Court reiterated that Section 1, Rule 20 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates that the court shall direct the parties and their attorneys to appear for a pre-trial conference. While Section 2, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court generally states that notice to counsel is notice to the party, this general rule yields to the specific provision of Rule 20, Section 1. The Court, citing previous rulings in Lim vs. Animas and Taroma vs. Sayo, held that notice of pre-trial must be served separately upon the party affected thereby and his counsel of record. This ensures that the party is duly informed of the conference and has the opportunity to appear, thereby safeguarding their right to due process. On the validity of the default order and subsequent proceedings: Because Section 1, Rule 20 of the Rules of Court requires separate notice to both the party and counsel for pre-trial, and such notice was not given to Bonifacio Sagarino personally, the order declaring him in default was invalid. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings in CAR Case No. 492-Cebu '63, including the reception of evidence ex parte, the judgment of ejectment, and the writ of execution, were null and void. The Court emphasized that a party cannot be non-suited or considered in default without a showing that both the party and their counsel were duly served with notice of the pre-trial conference, as failure to do so constitutes a denial of procedural due process, rendering the judgment void and subject to being ignored.
Main Doctrine
Notice of a pre-trial conference must be served separately upon the party and his counsel of record to satisfy the requirements of due process. Failure to serve notice upon the party renders the order of default and subsequent proceedings void.