G.R. No. L-20738 January 31, 1966
JULIANA SOLORIA and ANACLEM PASAMONTE, petitioners, vs. CEFRONIO DE LA CRUZ and HON. TOMAS P. PANGANIBAN, Presiding Judge, Court of Agrarian Relations, First Regional District, respondents.

FACTS

Cefronio de la Cruz filed a petition before the Court of Agrarian Relations against Juliana Soloria, alleging he was her share-tenant on a one-hectare riceland since 1959 and was unlawfully ejected on May 20, 1961. He sought reinstatement, reliquidation of harvest shares, damages, and attorney’s fees. The petition was later amended to include Anacleto Pasamonte as a co-respondent, alleged to be Soloria’s new tenant. Soloria, through counsel, denied the tenancy relationship, claimed de la Cruz was a minor without legal capacity to sue, asserted co-ownership of the land with others, and stated the land was cultivated by Valeriano de Leon after a prior tenant’s surrender. Pasamonte was claimed to be merely a hired farmhand. The court set the hearing for June 8, 1962, notifying the parties by registered mail. Neither the respondents nor their counsel appeared at the hearing. The court allowed de la Cruz to present evidence ex parte and subsequently considered the case submitted for decision. On August 30, 1962, the court rendered a decision in favor of de la Cruz. Three days after receiving the decision, respondents’ counsel filed a motion for reconsideration (treated as a motion for new trial), arguing they were deprived of their day in court because the notice of the June 8 hearing was received only on June 14, 1962, six days after the scheduled trial. This claim was supported by an affidavit from their counsel. The motion also reiterated the merits of their special defenses. The court a quo denied the motion, ruling that respondents were negligent for not informing the court of their intention to present evidence between their receipt of the order submitting the case for decision (August 8, 1962) and the rendition of judgment (August 30, 1962), and that their motion lacked an affidavit of merits.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Agrarian Relations gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion for new trial filed by petitioners (respondents below) who failed to attend the hearing due to late receipt of the notice.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari. The failure of petitioners’ counsel to receive notice of the hearing before the scheduled trial date constituted an “accident” under Section 1, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court, a valid ground for a new trial. The Rules of Court, including Rule 37, are applicable to the Court of Agrarian Relations. Jurisprudence establishes that when a movant is deprived of their day in court through no fault or negligence of their own due to lack of advance notice of hearing, the judgment is void, and a new trial is demandable as a right. In such a case, an affidavit of merits is not necessary to support the motion. The trial court’s finding of negligence based on petitioners’ inaction between August 8 and August 30, 1962, did not constitute a waiver of their fundamental right to be heard, as such a renunciation cannot be lightly inferred. The Supreme Court reversed the disputed resolution, set it aside, granted a new trial, and remanded the case to the court of origin for further proceedings.