Agulto v. Tecson
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent William Z. Tecson filed an action for damages against petitioners Rolando Agulto, Maxima Agulto, Cecille Tenoria, and Maribel Mallari. The petitioners and Mallari subsequently filed an answer, asserting that the respondent lacked a cause of action and alleging malicious prosecution, while simultaneously praying for the dismissal of the complaint. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 79, initially dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute. However, upon the respondent's motion for reconsideration, the RTC revived the complaint and scheduled a pre-trial conference. The pre-trial was reset multiple times. On June 17, 1999, the RTC issued an order allowing the respondent to present evidence ex parte due to the petitioners' failure to appear and submit a pre-trial brief. The RTC subsequently denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration and their motions to cite respondent's counsel in contempt and to set aside the decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petitioners' subsequent petition for certiorari, ruling that the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal and that the RTC did not abuse its discretion. The Petition: Petitioners seek review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. They argue that the CA erred in ruling that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion, in upholding a decision based on technicalities rather than merits, and in concluding that a petition for certiorari was not the proper remedy. Petitioners contend that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by issuing orders that effectively denied them due process, particularly by allowing the presentation of evidence ex parte without proper notice of the pre-trial conference.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Regional Trial Court did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and whether a petition for certiorari was the proper remedy. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the decision of the lower court which was based not on the merits of the case but on mere technicalities, specifically regarding the failure to appear and file a pre-trial brief without proper notice. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari, failing to recognize the violation of due process resulting from the lack of notice of pre-trial.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The September 27, 2000 decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The June 17, 1999 order, as well as all subsequent proceedings and orders, including the July 12, 1999 decision and September 24, 1999 order, of the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 79 are likewise SET ASIDE. The RTC is ORDERED to direct the parties to appear for a pre-trial conference in strict compliance with the rules and thereafter, to proceed to trial as necessary.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy and grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that the RTC committed a grave abuse of discretion when it issued the June 17, 1999 order allowing the respondent to present evidence ex parte without prior notice of the pre-trial to the petitioners' counsel. This grave abuse of discretion was perpetuated in the September 24, 1999 order denying the motion for reconsideration. The Court emphasized that under Section 3, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, notice of pre-trial must be served on counsel, and the failure to do so renders the proceedings void for violation of due process. Therefore, a petition for certiorari was the proper remedy, contrary to the CA's ruling. The Court reiterated that even if an ordinary appeal is available, a writ of certiorari may be entertained when the order of the court is a patent nullity. On the effect of failure to appear and file pre-trial brief without notice: The Court clarified that while failure to appear at pre-trial or to file a pre-trial brief can lead to an ex parte presentation of evidence, this is conditioned upon the prior service of a notice of pre-trial. Without such notice, a party cannot be expected to know the date of the pre-trial and consequently cannot be faulted for failing to appear or file the brief. The Court found the RTC's reasoning that the petitioners' counsel was deemed notified by merely suggesting a date to be without legal basis, as such suggestion was provisional and required official notice. The duty to serve notice rests with the court, not the parties. On the violation of due process: The Court stressed that the mandatory nature of the notice of pre-trial is a fundamental aspect of due process. Failure to serve such notice deprives a party of the opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, leading to a judgment based on technicalities rather than merits. The Court found that the RTC's orders were void for lack of notice, and the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that it was not the proper remedy. The Court underscored that speedy disposition of cases should not result in the precipitate loss of a party's right to due process.
Main Doctrine
The failure to serve a notice of pre-trial on counsel, or on the party if he has no counsel, constitutes a grave abuse of discretion and renders all subsequent proceedings, including an order allowing presentation of evidence ex parte and the judgment rendered thereon, void for violation of the constitutional right to due process.