Download - G. R. No. 149617
-
THIRDDIVISION
[G.R.No.149617.September3,2003]
JUDGEMARIANOJOAQUINS.MACIAS,petitioner,vs.MARGIECORPUSMACIAS,respondent.
DECISIONSANDOVALGUTIERREZ,J.:
Dueprocessistheveryessenceofjusticeitself.Wheretheruleoflawisthebedrockofourfreesociety,justiceisitsverylifeblood.Denialofdueprocessisthusnolessthanadenialofjustice.[1]
BeforeusisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,asamended,assailingtheDecision[2]datedJuly13,2001andtheResolution[3]datedAugust30,2001,bothrenderedbytheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.64733,MargieCorpusMaciasvs.Hon.WilfredoG.OchotorenaandHon.JudgeMarianoJoaquinS.Macias.
Thefactualantecedentsasbornebytherecordsare:OnFebruary6,2001,JudgeMarianoJoaquinS.Macias(hereinpetitioner)filedwiththeRegionalTrialCourt,Branch11,Sindangan,ZamboangadelNorte,a
petitionfordeclarationofnullityofmarriageagainstMargieCorpusMacias(hereinrespondent),docketedasCivilCaseNo.S695.
Thesheriffexertedearnesteffortstopersonallyservecopiesofthesummonsandcomplaintupontherespondent,buttonoavail.Hence,thetrialcourt,uponpetitionersmotion,issuedanOrderdatedMarch7,2001directingthatsummonsbeeffectedbypublicationinanewspaperofgeneralcirculationintheprovinceofZamboangadelNorteandthetwincitiesofDapitanandDipologandthereafterrequiringtherespondenttofileheranswerwithinaperiodofthirty(30)daysfromnotice.
Subsequently,thesummonsandcomplaintwerepublishedintheMarch11to17,2001issuesoftheDipologbasednewspaperTingogPeninsula.Insteadoffilingananswer,respondent,throughcounsel,onApril10,2001,filedamotiontodismissthepetitiononthefollowinggrounds:(1)thecauseofaction
isbarredbythestatuteoflimitations(2)thetrialcourthasnojurisdictionbecauseitisnotamongthosedesignatedtoactasafamilycourtunderResolutionA.M.No.991107SCand(3)thepartiesfailedtoresorttobarangayconciliationpriortothefilingofthepetition.
OnApril19,2001,thetrialcourtissuedanOrderdenyingrespondentsmotiontodismiss.Incidentally,inthesameOrder,thetrialcourtgrantedrespondentsrequest(vialongdistancetelephonecall)tosetthehearingonApril30,2001.
ThehearingsetonApril30,2001wascancelledforfailureofrespondentandcounselaswellastheexpertwitnesstoappear.Onthesameday,thetrialcourt
-
issuedanOrdersettingthehearinganewonMay2and3,2001.RespondentreceivedacopyofthisOrderonlyonMay8,2001.Thus,whenthecasewascalledforhearingasscheduled,respondentandcounsel,notbeingdulynotified,didnotappear.Surprisingly,thetrialcourtallowedthepetitionertopresenthisevidenceexparte.
Afterthepetitionerrestedhiscase,thetrialcourtissuedanOrderdatedMay3,2001(1)directingthepublicprosecutortosubmitaCertificationcontaininghisassentoroppositiontothepetition(2)directingthepetitionerandthepublicprosecutortosubmittheirrespectivememorandawithinanonextendibleperiodoften(10)daysand(3)declaringthecasesubmittedfordecision.
OnMay5,2001,respondentstillunawarethat thecasehadbeensubmittedfordecision, filedamotionforreconsiderationof theOrderdatedApril19,2001denyinghermotiontodismiss.ThetrialcourtmerelynotedthemotionforreconsiderationinhisOrderdatedMay16,2001.
Consequently,onMay18,2001,respondentfiledwiththeCourtofAppealsapetitionforcertiorariwithprayerforissuanceofatemporaryrestrainingorderand/orawritofpreliminaryinjunctionchallengingthetrialcourtsOrderdatedApril19,2001whichdeniedhermotiontodismissandOrderdatedApril30,2001cancellingtheApril30,2001hearingandresettingitonMay2and3,2001.
Actingthereon,theCourtofAppeals,inaResolutiondatedMay23,2001,enjoinedthetrialcourtfromconductingfurtherproceedingsinCivilCaseNo.S695.
Meanwhile,onMay15,2001orbarelytwelve(12)daysfromsubmissionofthecasefordecision,thetrialcourtrendereditsDecisiondeclaringthenullityofthemarriagebetweenthepartiesonthegroundofpsychologicalincapacityonthepartofhereinrespondent.Thereupon,shefiledamotionforreconsideration.Thismotionhasnotbeenactedupon.
Meantime,onJuly13,2001,theCourtofAppealsrenderedaDecisiongrantingrespondentspetitionforcertiorari,thus:
TheissuethatnowcomestoforeiswhetherornotthePetitionerwasdeprived,bytheRespondentCourt,ofherrighttodueprocessenshrinedinArticleIII,Section1ofthe1987Constitution,viaitsOrders,AnnexesLandOofthePetition,anditsDecision.
xxxxxxxxx
Inthepresentrecourse,thehearingsofthecomplaintofthePrivateRespondent,onitsmerits,beforetheissueswerejoinedwasafarce,ablatanttransgressionbytheRespondentsofthefundamentalrightofthePetitionertodueprocess.Takingstockoftheantecedentalmilieuinthepresentrecourse,Weareconvinced,beyondcavil,thateithertheRespondentCourtwasignorantofthebasicrudimentsofCivilProcedureorifhewasawareofsaidRulesasheshould,hesimplyignoredthesame,ranroughshodovertherightsofthePetitioner,railroadedthehearingofthecaseandrenderedjudgmentevenbeforethePetitionerhadtheopportunitytodefendherselfandadduceherevidence.
xxxxxxxxx
ThereisnoevidenceonrecordwhenthePetitionerwasservedwiththecomplaintandsummonsbyregisteredmail.However,thePetitionerlearnedofthecomplaintandsummonsaboutthefirstweekofApril,2001onthebasisoftheMarch1117,2001issueoftheTingogPeninsula.EvenifthethirtydayperiodfixedbytheRespondentCourtwasreckonedfromtheMarch1117,2001issueoftheTingogPeninsula,thePetitionerhaduntilApril16,2001withinwhichtofileaMotiontoDismissunderSection1,Rule16ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedureorfileanAnswertothecomplaint.However,sheoptedtofile,onApril10,2001,aMotiontoDismiss,insteadoffilinganAnswertothecomplaint.ThefilingofsaidmotionsuspendedtheperiodforhertofileherAnswertothecomplaint.UntilsaidmotionisresolvedbytheRespondentCourtwithfinality,itbehoovedtheRespondentCourttosuspendthehearingsofthecaseonthemerits.TheRespondentCourt,onApril19,2001,issueditsOrderdenyingtheMotiontoDismissofthePetitioner.
-
UnderSection6,Rule16ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,thePetitionerhadthebalanceoftheperiodprovidedforinRule11ofthesaidRulesbutinnocaselessthanfive(5)dayscomputedfromserviceonheroftheaforesaidOrderoftheRespondentCourtwithinwhichtofileherAnswertothecomplaint:
xxxxxxxxx
ThePetitionermayfileaMotionforReconsiderationofsaidOrderconformablywithSection5,Rule135oftheRulesofCourt.
Untilthen,ahearingofthecaseonitsmeritsisimpermissibleandatravesty.However,evenbeforethePetitionercouldbeservedwithacopyoftheorderoftheRespondentCourt(AnnexLofthePetition)denyingherMotiontoDismiss,theRespondentCourtproceededwiththehearingofthecaseonitsmeritsandreceivedtheevidenceofthePrivateRespondentonMay2and3,2001.Asitwas,Petitioner,throughcounsel,receivedonlyonMay3,2001theOrderoftheRespondentCourt(AnnexLofthePetition)denyingherMotiontoDismissand,onMay5,2001,thePetitionerfiledaMotionforReconsiderationoftheOrderoftheRespondentCourt,datedApril19,2001.
WhatissotriteisthattheRespondentCourtviolateditsownOrderdatedFebruary27,2001,declaringthatthehearingofthecaseonitsmeritswillensueonlyafterthePetitionershallhavefiledherAnswertothecomplaint.
EquallyworrisomeisthefactthatthePetitionerremindedtheRespondentCourt,inherManifestationandMotion,datedApril18,2001,thatthecasewasnotripeforhearingonitsmeritsandprayedthatthehearingofthecaseonitsmeritsbesuspendeduntilafterfinalresolutionbytheRespondentCourtofherMotiontoDismiss:
xxxxxxxxx
EvenifthePetitionerfailedtofileherAnswertothecomplaint,aftertheperiodthereforhadlapsed,theRespondentCourtwasnotauthorizedtoconductahearingofthecaseonitsmerits.ThisissobecauseSection3(e),Rule9ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedurespecificallyprovidesthat:
(c)Wherenodefaultsallowed.Ifthedefendingpartyinanactionforannulmentordeclarationofnullityofmarriageorforlegalseparationfailstoanswer,thecourtshallordertheprosecutingattorneytoinvestigatewhetherornotacollusionbetweenthepartiesexists,andifthereisnocollusion,tointervenefortheStateinordertoseetoitthattheevidencesubmittedisnotfabricated.(idem,supra.)
TheReportofthePublicProsecutorisaconditionsinequanontofurtherproceedingsofthecaseonitsmerits.TheRespondentCourtignoredtheaforequotedRule.ItbearsstressingthatthePetitionerhadalreadyfiledherMotiontoDismissand,hence,canbenotifiedbythePublicProsecutorofhisinvestigation.
xxxxxxxxx
INLIGHTOFALLTHEFOREGOING,thePetitionisGIVENDUECOURSEandGRANTED.ThehearingsofthecaseonthemeritsonMay2and3,2001,includingtheDecisionoftheRespondentCourt,areNULLIFIED.TheRespondentCourtisherebyorderedtoresolvetheMotionforReconsiderationofthePetitionerdatedMay5,2001,afterthePrivateRespondentshallhavefiledhisCommentorOppositiontosaidmotionand,thereafter,toproceedwiththecaseasprovidedforbytheRulesofCourt.
SOORDERED.
FromthesaidDecision,petitionerfiledamotionforreconsideration,butitwasdenied.
-
Hence,thispetitionforreviewoncertiorari.
Petitionervehementlyasserts that theCourtofAppealsseriouslyerred inholding that the trial courtdeprived respondentofher right todueprocessand innullifying,notonlytheMay2and3,2001hearings,butalsothetrialcourtsDecisiondatedMay15,2001.
WeagreewiththeCourtofAppeals.
ThisCourtwillnotcountenanceadenialofonesfundamentalrighttodueprocess,whichisacornerstoneofourlegalsystem.[4]
In thecaseatbar, the trialcourtdidnotobserve the rudimentaryprincipleofdueprocessenshrined inourConstitution. Neitherdid it complywithpertinentproceduralrules.
More to thepoint, the trialcourt,withoutevenwaiting for respondentsmotion for reconsiderationof theApril19,2001Orderdenyinghermotion todismiss,hurriedlysetthecaseforhearing.Also,withoutallowingtherespondenttofileheranswertothepetitionandknowingtherewasnojoinderofissuesasyet,thetrialcourthastilyauthorizedpetitionertopresenthisevidenceexparte.
PursuanttoSection3(e),Rule9ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,asamended,wherethedefendingpartyfailstofilehisorheranswertothepetition,thetrialcourtshouldordertheprosecutortointervenefortheStatebyconductinganinvestigationtodeterminewhetherornottherewascollusionbetweentheparties.Here,thetrialcourtdisregardedsuchprocedure.Obviously,thesummaryproceedingisapatentnullity.
Andassumingarguendothattherewasananswerfiledbytherespondent,still,thehearingofthecaseonMay2and3,2001isaproceduralflaw.Asstatedattheoutset,respondentreceivedthenoticeofhearingonlyonMay8,2001.SohowcouldshebepresentincourtonMay2and3?
Weareconvincedthatrespondentsfundamentalrighttodueprocesswasblatantlytransgressedbythetrialcourt.Andresultantly,theproceedingsconducted,includingthetrialcourtsDecision,arevoidforlackofdueprocess.
Wehaveconsistentlyheldthatadenialofdueprocesssufficestocastontheofficialacttakenbywhateverbranchofthegovernmenttheimpressofnullity.[5]
InUyvs.CourtofAppeals,weruledthat(a)decisionisvoidforlackofdueprocessif,asaresult,aparty(asinthiscase)isdeprivedoftheopportunityofbeingheard.Avoiddecisionmaybeassailedorimpugnedatanytimeeitherdirectlyorcollaterally,bymeansofaseparateaction,orbyresistingsuchdecisioninanyactionorproceedingwhereitisinvoked.[6]
Indeed,indeprivingrespondentherconstitutionalandproceduralrighttodueprocess,thetrialcourtgravelyabuseditsdiscretion.Itis,therefore,imperativethattheinstantcasefordeclarationofnullityofmarriagebelitigatedanewinaccordancewiththeRules.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.TheassailedDecisiondatedJuly13,2001andResolutiondatedAugust30,2001oftheCourtofAppealsareherebyAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.Puno,(Chairman),Panganiban,Corona,andCarpioMorales,JJ.,concur.
[1]J.Panganiban,SeparateOpinioninSerranovs.NLRC,G.R.No.117040,January27,2000,323SCRA445,545.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/117040_JPanganiban.htm
-
[2]AnnexA,Petition,Rolloat2244.
[3]AnnexB,id.at46.[4]Pinlacvs.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.91486,January19,2001,349SCRA635,653,citingFabellavs.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.110379,November28,1997,282SCRA256.
[5]Uyvs.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.109557,November29,2000,346SCRA246,254,citingDBPvs.Bautista,G.R.No.L21362,November29,1968,26SCRA366,371.[6]Id.,citingAngLamvs.Rosillosa,86Phil.447,452(1950).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/nov1997/110379.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/91486.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/109557.htm