GR 49052; (January, 1980) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-49052. January 28, 1980
ANSELMO CARANDANG, BENJAMIN CARANDANG, ARMANDO CARANDANG, and ESTERLITA CARANDANG, petitioners, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (National Irrigation Administration), HON. FIDEL P. PURISIMA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch 1, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners were defendants in an expropriation case filed by the Republic of the Philippines. They alleged a denial of procedural due process, claiming they were deprived of their day in court. On June 7, 1978, petitioners appeared before respondent Judge Fidel P. Purisima at 1:30 p.m. for a scheduled pre-trial. They were informed, however, that the hearing had already been conducted at 9:00 a.m. that morning. Consequently, the respondent judge issued an order declaring petitioners in default for their non-appearance at the morning session and authorized the plaintiff to present evidence ex-parte.
Petitioners filed a motion to lift the order of default, but it was denied. They subsequently filed this certiorari and prohibition proceeding, asserting that the default order violated their constitutional right to due process. The Republic, through the Solicitor General, filed a Comment, which was treated as an answer, arguing that certiorari requires a showing of grave abuse of discretion or jurisdictional infirmity, which was absent.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion, amounting to a denial of procedural due process, in issuing the order of default against petitioners.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioners, emphasizing the paramount importance of procedural due process, especially in eminent domain proceedings. The Court acknowledged the Solicitor General’s position that, on its face, the default order based on non-appearance at a scheduled hearing did not necessarily constitute a grave abuse of discretion. The order for pre-trial indicated the time as 9:30 A.M., and petitioners’ impression that it was at 1:30 P.M. could not be imputed as blame to the respondent judge.
However, the Court held that the broader cause of justice demanded a hearing on the merits. The petitioners’ failure to appear was deemed a case of excusable neglect, warranting judicial leniency to afford them their day in court. The Court stressed that the power of eminent domain, while inherent in sovereignty, must be exercised in strict compliance with due process requirements. Citing Visayan Refining Co. v. Camus, the Court reiterated that the expropriation process is ultimately a question of due process. Therefore, to ensure fairness and adherence to constitutional safeguards, the default order was set aside. The case was remanded to the lower court for the conduct of a pre-trial where petitioners could be heard. No costs were awarded.