G.R. No. L-35701 September 19, 1973
ARTURO H. TROCIO, petitioner-appellant, vs. JORGE LABAYO, Undersecretary of Finance; SIXTO B. TADEO, Assistant Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental; and ABELARDO SUBIDO, Commissioner of Civil Service, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Arturo H. Trocio filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental to annul his dismissal as Municipal Treasurer by respondent Commissioner of Civil Service. He alleged the administrative proceedings were infirm due to a denied motion for postponement. The court issued a notice setting the case for “hearing” on October 14, 1964. On that date, petitioner’s counsel moved to set the case for pre-trial, arguing the notice was defective for not specifying it was for a pre-trial. Counsel also revealed petitioner was in Cebu City, acting on advice that a hearing on the merits could not proceed. The provincial fiscal, representing respondents, stated readiness for pre-trial but emphasized that if no settlement was reached, the trial should proceed as government witnesses had incurred expenses. The lower court viewed petitioner’s actions as a dilatory tactic, noting the notice had been received over a month prior and his absence precluded a pre-trial anyway. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition for failure to prosecute.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner was denied procedural due process because the court’s notice of hearing did not explicitly state that the scheduled proceeding was for a pre-trial conference.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled there was no denial of procedural due process and affirmed the order of dismissal. The legal logic is clear: a “hearing” in legal contemplation is not confined to a trial on the merits but encompasses various stages of litigation, including pre-trial. The Court cited jurisprudence establishing that a hearing can involve determinations on bail, motions to dismiss, or other preliminary matters. Therefore, the notice for a “hearing” did not preclude a pre-trial conference. The petitioner’s technical objection, raised only on the morning of the hearing after a month of inaction, lacked merit and good faith. His absence from the hearing, which itself would have prevented a pre-trial, demonstrated a lack of interest to prosecute. Furthermore, the Court noted that where facts are undisputed and the issue is purely legal, a pre-trial may not be necessary. The lower court’s dismissal, based on petitioner’s dilatory conduct and failure to prosecute, was neither arbitrary nor a violation of due process, which requires fairness, not adherence to overly formalistic requirements. The order was a proper exercise of judicial discretion.