G.R. No. L-27927 June 20, 1977
Bonifacio Sagarino, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Inocentes Pelayo, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Inocentes Pelayo filed an ejectment case (CAR Case No. 492) against his tenant, Bonifacio Sagarino, before the Court of Agrarian Relations. The court set the case for pre-trial and sent notices only to the lawyers of the parties, not to the parties personally. Sagarino and his counsel failed to appear at the pre-trial. Consequently, the court declared Sagarino in default upon Pelayo’s motion, allowed ex parte presentation of evidence, and later decided in favor of Pelayo, ordering Sagarino’s ejectment. The decision became final and a writ of execution was issued.
Sagarino then filed a separate action (CAR Case No. 601) to annul the proceedings in the ejectment case. He argued that the declaration of default and all subsequent proceedings were null and void because he was not personally served with notice of the pre-trial as required by the rules. The agrarian court dismissed this annulment case, ruling that Sagarino failed to avail himself of the proper remedies like a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Agrarian Relations validly declared Sagarino in default for non-appearance at the pre-trial despite notice being served only upon his counsel and not upon him personally.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and annulled the proceedings in the ejectment case. The legal logic centers on strict compliance with procedural due process as mandated by the rules on pre-trial. The Court held that Section 1, Rule 20 of the Rules of Court (then applicable to agrarian cases) expressly required that notice of a pre-trial conference “shall be served upon the parties.” The use of the word “parties” is mandatory and distinct from the general rule on service of pleadings under Rule 13, which typically deems service on counsel as service on the client.
The failure to serve the notice personally upon Sagarino, the party himself, meant there was no valid pre-trial conference. A pre-trial is a critical stage where the parties themselves, not just their lawyers, are expected to explore settlement and simplify issues. Declaring a party in default for non-appearance at an invalidly convened pre-trial constitutes a denial of procedural due process. A judgment rendered after such a denial is void for lack of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that a void judgment is “a lawless thing” and can be attacked directly or collaterally at any time. Since the default order and the subsequent ex parte proceedings were nullities, Sagarino’s separate action for annulment was a proper remedy. The agrarian court was ordered to reopen the original ejectment case and conduct a proper pre-trial with notice to both the party and his counsel.