G.R. No. L-39037. January 23, 1978.
INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA (FORMERLY FIRST INSULAR BANK OF CEBU) and GREGORIO J. WALWAL, petitioners, vs. HON. ISIDRO C. BORROMEO, Presiding Judge, CFI of South Cotabato, Branch II, and CIRIACO JABIDO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were defendants in Civil Case No. 183 before the Court of First Instance of South Cotabato. Due to the prolonged absence of respondent Judge Borromeo presiding Branch II in Koronadal, the case records were transferred to Branch I in General Santos City. Petitioners’ counsel received formal notices setting the trial for February 25, 1974, in General Santos City. The hearing commenced there but was continued to April 1, 1974, a date chosen by petitioners’ counsel. Unbeknownst to petitioners or their counsel, the records were subsequently returned to Branch II in Koronadal without any notification of this change of venue.
On April 1, 1974, petitioner Walwal appeared at Branch I in General Santos City only to learn the case had been returned to Branch II. Meanwhile, their counsel’s flight to General Santos City was cancelled due to mechanical trouble, and he promptly notified Branch I. Despite the lack of notice regarding the venue change, respondent Judge, presiding in Koronadal, allowed private respondent Jabido to present his evidence ex-parte before the Branch Clerk of Court. Petitioners’ urgent petition and motion for reconsideration to set aside the ex-parte proceedings were denied.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in allowing an ex-parte presentation of evidence without notifying petitioners of the change in the trial venue, thereby violating their right to procedural due process.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari. The Court emphasized that notice of hearing is a fundamental and indispensable element of procedural due process. Parties have a right to be present at trial, either personally or through counsel, and are entitled to reasonable notice of the time and place of trial. In this case, while petitioners had notice of the date (April 1, 1974), they were deprived of notice regarding the critical change of venue from General Santos City to Koronadal. This lack of notification effectively prevented them from attending the hearing, as their appearance at the wrong venue and their counsel’s unavoidable absence were direct consequences of this failure to inform.
The Court cited the doctrine in Loquias v. Rodriguez that the absence of proper notice, resulting in a litigant being deprived of their day in court, warrants judicial intervention. The right to be heard would be meaningless if a party is not duly informed of where the hearing will take place. The respondent Judge’s order allowing ex-parte proceedings under these circumstances was a denial of the essence of a fair hearing. Consequently, the challenged order dated April 1, 1974, was nullified and set aside. The case was ordered to be set for a new trial by the presiding judge of Branch II, with proceedings to be conducted strictly in accordance with the Rules of Court.