G.R. No. L-69730 July 11, 1985
TRANQUILINO BALADIANG, petitioner, vs. HON. GREGORIO U. AQUILIZAN, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Kabacan, North Cotabato, and RODOLFO SABADO, Attorney-In-Fact, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated as an action for recovery of possession filed by private respondent Rodolfo Sabado (as attorney-in-fact) against petitioner Tranquilino Baladiang. The petitioner alleges that the original summons in 1968 was improperly served upon a person not a member of his family and not authorized to receive it, a fact the private respondent does not deny. The case experienced significant delays and transfers between courts. In 1983, the respondent judge dismissed the case without prejudice for non-appearance of the parties at a hearing, noting that the hearing notice could not be served as the parties were uncontactable.
In November 1984, the private respondent, a non-lawyer acting as attorney-in-fact, moved to reinstate the case, claiming lack of notice for the previous non-appearance. The court set a hearing for November 16, 1984. The petitioner asserts he did not receive this notice either, as it was served on one Perfecto Cano, another uncontradicted allegation. Subsequently, on November 26, 1984, the respondent judge granted the plaintiff’s motion to declare the defendant in default and set the ex parte presentation of evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the orders declaring the petitioner in default and proceeding with ex parte reception of evidence, despite apparent lack of proper service of summons and court notices throughout the proceedings.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental requirement of procedural due process. The record conclusively demonstrated a persistent failure to properly serve the petitioner with critical court processes. The initial summons was not served on the petitioner or an authorized agent, and key subsequent notices, including the notice for the hearing that led to the default order, were likewise not served upon him personally or through a competent representative. These defects deprived the petitioner of a meaningful opportunity to be heard and to present his defense.
The Court rejected the respondent judge’s claim in his comment that the petition was premature due to a pending motion for reconsideration, as both the petition and the private respondent’s comment indicated that motion had already been resolved and denied. The Court found the lower court’s actions, taken without ensuring the defendant was properly notified, constituted a violation of due process and reflected poor court management. Consequently, the challenged orders were annulled and set aside. The respondent judge was directed to ensure the petitioner is properly served with summons to regularize the proceedings, with costs against the private respondent. Justice Aquino, in a separate concurrence, added that the petitioner should be given a specific period to answer the complaint upon proper notice.