G. R. No. 149617

download G. R. No. 149617

of 5

description

G. R. No. 149617

Transcript of G. R. No. 149617

  • THIRDDIVISION

    [G.R.No.149617.September3,2003]

    JUDGEMARIANOJOAQUINS.MACIAS,petitioner,vs.MARGIECORPUSMACIAS,respondent.

    DECISIONSANDOVALGUTIERREZ,J.:

    Dueprocessistheveryessenceofjusticeitself.Wheretheruleoflawisthebedrockofourfreesociety,justiceisitsverylifeblood.Denialofdueprocessisthusnolessthanadenialofjustice.[1]

    BeforeusisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,asamended,assailingtheDecision[2]datedJuly13,2001andtheResolution[3]datedAugust30,2001,bothrenderedbytheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.64733,MargieCorpusMaciasvs.Hon.WilfredoG.OchotorenaandHon.JudgeMarianoJoaquinS.Macias.

    Thefactualantecedentsasbornebytherecordsare:OnFebruary6,2001,JudgeMarianoJoaquinS.Macias(hereinpetitioner)filedwiththeRegionalTrialCourt,Branch11,Sindangan,ZamboangadelNorte,a

    petitionfordeclarationofnullityofmarriageagainstMargieCorpusMacias(hereinrespondent),docketedasCivilCaseNo.S695.

    Thesheriffexertedearnesteffortstopersonallyservecopiesofthesummonsandcomplaintupontherespondent,buttonoavail.Hence,thetrialcourt,uponpetitionersmotion,issuedanOrderdatedMarch7,2001directingthatsummonsbeeffectedbypublicationinanewspaperofgeneralcirculationintheprovinceofZamboangadelNorteandthetwincitiesofDapitanandDipologandthereafterrequiringtherespondenttofileheranswerwithinaperiodofthirty(30)daysfromnotice.

    Subsequently,thesummonsandcomplaintwerepublishedintheMarch11to17,2001issuesoftheDipologbasednewspaperTingogPeninsula.Insteadoffilingananswer,respondent,throughcounsel,onApril10,2001,filedamotiontodismissthepetitiononthefollowinggrounds:(1)thecauseofaction

    isbarredbythestatuteoflimitations(2)thetrialcourthasnojurisdictionbecauseitisnotamongthosedesignatedtoactasafamilycourtunderResolutionA.M.No.991107SCand(3)thepartiesfailedtoresorttobarangayconciliationpriortothefilingofthepetition.

    OnApril19,2001,thetrialcourtissuedanOrderdenyingrespondentsmotiontodismiss.Incidentally,inthesameOrder,thetrialcourtgrantedrespondentsrequest(vialongdistancetelephonecall)tosetthehearingonApril30,2001.

    ThehearingsetonApril30,2001wascancelledforfailureofrespondentandcounselaswellastheexpertwitnesstoappear.Onthesameday,thetrialcourt

  • issuedanOrdersettingthehearinganewonMay2and3,2001.RespondentreceivedacopyofthisOrderonlyonMay8,2001.Thus,whenthecasewascalledforhearingasscheduled,respondentandcounsel,notbeingdulynotified,didnotappear.Surprisingly,thetrialcourtallowedthepetitionertopresenthisevidenceexparte.

    Afterthepetitionerrestedhiscase,thetrialcourtissuedanOrderdatedMay3,2001(1)directingthepublicprosecutortosubmitaCertificationcontaininghisassentoroppositiontothepetition(2)directingthepetitionerandthepublicprosecutortosubmittheirrespectivememorandawithinanonextendibleperiodoften(10)daysand(3)declaringthecasesubmittedfordecision.

    OnMay5,2001,respondentstillunawarethat thecasehadbeensubmittedfordecision, filedamotionforreconsiderationof theOrderdatedApril19,2001denyinghermotiontodismiss.ThetrialcourtmerelynotedthemotionforreconsiderationinhisOrderdatedMay16,2001.

    Consequently,onMay18,2001,respondentfiledwiththeCourtofAppealsapetitionforcertiorariwithprayerforissuanceofatemporaryrestrainingorderand/orawritofpreliminaryinjunctionchallengingthetrialcourtsOrderdatedApril19,2001whichdeniedhermotiontodismissandOrderdatedApril30,2001cancellingtheApril30,2001hearingandresettingitonMay2and3,2001.

    Actingthereon,theCourtofAppeals,inaResolutiondatedMay23,2001,enjoinedthetrialcourtfromconductingfurtherproceedingsinCivilCaseNo.S695.

    Meanwhile,onMay15,2001orbarelytwelve(12)daysfromsubmissionofthecasefordecision,thetrialcourtrendereditsDecisiondeclaringthenullityofthemarriagebetweenthepartiesonthegroundofpsychologicalincapacityonthepartofhereinrespondent.Thereupon,shefiledamotionforreconsideration.Thismotionhasnotbeenactedupon.

    Meantime,onJuly13,2001,theCourtofAppealsrenderedaDecisiongrantingrespondentspetitionforcertiorari,thus:

    TheissuethatnowcomestoforeiswhetherornotthePetitionerwasdeprived,bytheRespondentCourt,ofherrighttodueprocessenshrinedinArticleIII,Section1ofthe1987Constitution,viaitsOrders,AnnexesLandOofthePetition,anditsDecision.

    xxxxxxxxx

    Inthepresentrecourse,thehearingsofthecomplaintofthePrivateRespondent,onitsmerits,beforetheissueswerejoinedwasafarce,ablatanttransgressionbytheRespondentsofthefundamentalrightofthePetitionertodueprocess.Takingstockoftheantecedentalmilieuinthepresentrecourse,Weareconvinced,beyondcavil,thateithertheRespondentCourtwasignorantofthebasicrudimentsofCivilProcedureorifhewasawareofsaidRulesasheshould,hesimplyignoredthesame,ranroughshodovertherightsofthePetitioner,railroadedthehearingofthecaseandrenderedjudgmentevenbeforethePetitionerhadtheopportunitytodefendherselfandadduceherevidence.

    xxxxxxxxx

    ThereisnoevidenceonrecordwhenthePetitionerwasservedwiththecomplaintandsummonsbyregisteredmail.However,thePetitionerlearnedofthecomplaintandsummonsaboutthefirstweekofApril,2001onthebasisoftheMarch1117,2001issueoftheTingogPeninsula.EvenifthethirtydayperiodfixedbytheRespondentCourtwasreckonedfromtheMarch1117,2001issueoftheTingogPeninsula,thePetitionerhaduntilApril16,2001withinwhichtofileaMotiontoDismissunderSection1,Rule16ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedureorfileanAnswertothecomplaint.However,sheoptedtofile,onApril10,2001,aMotiontoDismiss,insteadoffilinganAnswertothecomplaint.ThefilingofsaidmotionsuspendedtheperiodforhertofileherAnswertothecomplaint.UntilsaidmotionisresolvedbytheRespondentCourtwithfinality,itbehoovedtheRespondentCourttosuspendthehearingsofthecaseonthemerits.TheRespondentCourt,onApril19,2001,issueditsOrderdenyingtheMotiontoDismissofthePetitioner.

  • UnderSection6,Rule16ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,thePetitionerhadthebalanceoftheperiodprovidedforinRule11ofthesaidRulesbutinnocaselessthanfive(5)dayscomputedfromserviceonheroftheaforesaidOrderoftheRespondentCourtwithinwhichtofileherAnswertothecomplaint:

    xxxxxxxxx

    ThePetitionermayfileaMotionforReconsiderationofsaidOrderconformablywithSection5,Rule135oftheRulesofCourt.

    Untilthen,ahearingofthecaseonitsmeritsisimpermissibleandatravesty.However,evenbeforethePetitionercouldbeservedwithacopyoftheorderoftheRespondentCourt(AnnexLofthePetition)denyingherMotiontoDismiss,theRespondentCourtproceededwiththehearingofthecaseonitsmeritsandreceivedtheevidenceofthePrivateRespondentonMay2and3,2001.Asitwas,Petitioner,throughcounsel,receivedonlyonMay3,2001theOrderoftheRespondentCourt(AnnexLofthePetition)denyingherMotiontoDismissand,onMay5,2001,thePetitionerfiledaMotionforReconsiderationoftheOrderoftheRespondentCourt,datedApril19,2001.

    WhatissotriteisthattheRespondentCourtviolateditsownOrderdatedFebruary27,2001,declaringthatthehearingofthecaseonitsmeritswillensueonlyafterthePetitionershallhavefiledherAnswertothecomplaint.

    EquallyworrisomeisthefactthatthePetitionerremindedtheRespondentCourt,inherManifestationandMotion,datedApril18,2001,thatthecasewasnotripeforhearingonitsmeritsandprayedthatthehearingofthecaseonitsmeritsbesuspendeduntilafterfinalresolutionbytheRespondentCourtofherMotiontoDismiss:

    xxxxxxxxx

    EvenifthePetitionerfailedtofileherAnswertothecomplaint,aftertheperiodthereforhadlapsed,theRespondentCourtwasnotauthorizedtoconductahearingofthecaseonitsmerits.ThisissobecauseSection3(e),Rule9ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedurespecificallyprovidesthat:

    (c)Wherenodefaultsallowed.Ifthedefendingpartyinanactionforannulmentordeclarationofnullityofmarriageorforlegalseparationfailstoanswer,thecourtshallordertheprosecutingattorneytoinvestigatewhetherornotacollusionbetweenthepartiesexists,andifthereisnocollusion,tointervenefortheStateinordertoseetoitthattheevidencesubmittedisnotfabricated.(idem,supra.)

    TheReportofthePublicProsecutorisaconditionsinequanontofurtherproceedingsofthecaseonitsmerits.TheRespondentCourtignoredtheaforequotedRule.ItbearsstressingthatthePetitionerhadalreadyfiledherMotiontoDismissand,hence,canbenotifiedbythePublicProsecutorofhisinvestigation.

    xxxxxxxxx

    INLIGHTOFALLTHEFOREGOING,thePetitionisGIVENDUECOURSEandGRANTED.ThehearingsofthecaseonthemeritsonMay2and3,2001,includingtheDecisionoftheRespondentCourt,areNULLIFIED.TheRespondentCourtisherebyorderedtoresolvetheMotionforReconsiderationofthePetitionerdatedMay5,2001,afterthePrivateRespondentshallhavefiledhisCommentorOppositiontosaidmotionand,thereafter,toproceedwiththecaseasprovidedforbytheRulesofCourt.

    SOORDERED.

    FromthesaidDecision,petitionerfiledamotionforreconsideration,butitwasdenied.

  • Hence,thispetitionforreviewoncertiorari.

    Petitionervehementlyasserts that theCourtofAppealsseriouslyerred inholding that the trial courtdeprived respondentofher right todueprocessand innullifying,notonlytheMay2and3,2001hearings,butalsothetrialcourtsDecisiondatedMay15,2001.

    WeagreewiththeCourtofAppeals.

    ThisCourtwillnotcountenanceadenialofonesfundamentalrighttodueprocess,whichisacornerstoneofourlegalsystem.[4]

    In thecaseatbar, the trialcourtdidnotobserve the rudimentaryprincipleofdueprocessenshrined inourConstitution. Neitherdid it complywithpertinentproceduralrules.

    More to thepoint, the trialcourt,withoutevenwaiting for respondentsmotion for reconsiderationof theApril19,2001Orderdenyinghermotion todismiss,hurriedlysetthecaseforhearing.Also,withoutallowingtherespondenttofileheranswertothepetitionandknowingtherewasnojoinderofissuesasyet,thetrialcourthastilyauthorizedpetitionertopresenthisevidenceexparte.

    PursuanttoSection3(e),Rule9ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,asamended,wherethedefendingpartyfailstofilehisorheranswertothepetition,thetrialcourtshouldordertheprosecutortointervenefortheStatebyconductinganinvestigationtodeterminewhetherornottherewascollusionbetweentheparties.Here,thetrialcourtdisregardedsuchprocedure.Obviously,thesummaryproceedingisapatentnullity.

    Andassumingarguendothattherewasananswerfiledbytherespondent,still,thehearingofthecaseonMay2and3,2001isaproceduralflaw.Asstatedattheoutset,respondentreceivedthenoticeofhearingonlyonMay8,2001.SohowcouldshebepresentincourtonMay2and3?

    Weareconvincedthatrespondentsfundamentalrighttodueprocesswasblatantlytransgressedbythetrialcourt.Andresultantly,theproceedingsconducted,includingthetrialcourtsDecision,arevoidforlackofdueprocess.

    Wehaveconsistentlyheldthatadenialofdueprocesssufficestocastontheofficialacttakenbywhateverbranchofthegovernmenttheimpressofnullity.[5]

    InUyvs.CourtofAppeals,weruledthat(a)decisionisvoidforlackofdueprocessif,asaresult,aparty(asinthiscase)isdeprivedoftheopportunityofbeingheard.Avoiddecisionmaybeassailedorimpugnedatanytimeeitherdirectlyorcollaterally,bymeansofaseparateaction,orbyresistingsuchdecisioninanyactionorproceedingwhereitisinvoked.[6]

    Indeed,indeprivingrespondentherconstitutionalandproceduralrighttodueprocess,thetrialcourtgravelyabuseditsdiscretion.Itis,therefore,imperativethattheinstantcasefordeclarationofnullityofmarriagebelitigatedanewinaccordancewiththeRules.

    WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.TheassailedDecisiondatedJuly13,2001andResolutiondatedAugust30,2001oftheCourtofAppealsareherebyAFFIRMED.

    SOORDERED.Puno,(Chairman),Panganiban,Corona,andCarpioMorales,JJ.,concur.

    [1]J.Panganiban,SeparateOpinioninSerranovs.NLRC,G.R.No.117040,January27,2000,323SCRA445,545.

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/117040_JPanganiban.htm

  • [2]AnnexA,Petition,Rolloat2244.

    [3]AnnexB,id.at46.[4]Pinlacvs.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.91486,January19,2001,349SCRA635,653,citingFabellavs.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.110379,November28,1997,282SCRA256.

    [5]Uyvs.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.109557,November29,2000,346SCRA246,254,citingDBPvs.Bautista,G.R.No.L21362,November29,1968,26SCRA366,371.[6]Id.,citingAngLamvs.Rosillosa,86Phil.447,452(1950).

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/nov1997/110379.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/91486.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/109557.htm


R 255 G 204 B 0 R 255 G 130 B 0 R 127 G 16 B 162 R 163 G 166 B 173 R 104 G 113 B 122 R 234 G 234 B 234 R 170 G 15 B 30 R 0 G 0 B 0 R 255 G 255 B 255 Supporting.

R 255 G 204 B 0 R 255 G 130 B 0 R 127 G 16 B 162 R 163 G 166 B 173 R 104 G 113 B 122 R 234 G 234 B 234 R 170 G 15 B 30 R 0 G 0 B 0 R 255 G 255 B 255 Supporting.

HORM-G/30,2x60,7/R SKYLINE-G/30,2x60,7/R HORM … · HORMPORCELÁNICO ESMALTADO HORM-G/30,2x60,7/R SKYLINE-G/30,2x60,7/R HORM-G/60,7x60,7/R TEMPTATION-W 10 11

HORM-G/30,2x60,7/R SKYLINE-G/30,2x60,7/R HORM … · HORMPORCELÁNICO ESMALTADO HORM-G/30,2x60,7/R SKYLINE-G/30,2x60,7/R HORM-G/60,7x60,7/R TEMPTATION-W 10 11

Trauma Family Support Guide at Baylor Dallas - … · Trauma Family Support Guide at Baylor Dallas ... g r ound P arking Ga r age Lot 25 Unde r g r ... it’s no surprise that you

Trauma Family Support Guide at Baylor Dallas - … · Trauma Family Support Guide at Baylor Dallas ... g r ound P arking Ga r age Lot 25 Unde r g r ... it’s no surprise that you

1© Nokia Siemens Networks R 255 G 211 B 8 R 255 G 175 B 0 R 127 G 16 B 162 R 163 G 166 B 173 R 137 G 146 B 155 R 175 G 0 B 51 R 52 G 195 B 51 R 0 G 0 B.

1© Nokia Siemens Networks R 255 G 211 B 8 R 255 G 175 B 0 R 127 G 16 B 162 R 163 G 166 B 173 R 137 G 146 B 155 R 175 G 0 B 51 R 52 G 195 B 51 R 0 G 0 B.

289. Republic v. Vega G. R. No. 177790, Jan. 17, 2011

289. Republic v. Vega G. R. No. 177790, Jan. 17, 2011

G OVE R NO R G R E G AB B OTT - gov.texas.gov€¦ · G OVE R NO R G R E G AB B OTT POST OFFICE BOX 12428AUSTIN,TEXAS 78711512-463-2000(VOICE)DIAL 7-1-1FOR RELAY SERVICES. September

G OVE R NO R G R E G AB B OTT - gov.texas.gov€¦ · G OVE R NO R G R E G AB B OTT POST OFFICE BOX 12428AUSTIN,TEXAS 78711512-463-2000(VOICE)DIAL 7-1-1FOR RELAY SERVICES. September

T R I G O NO M E T R Í A - ranamizekazora.sitew.org

T R I G O NO M E T R Í A - ranamizekazora.sitew.org

5200 YONGE STREET - LoopNet...R R O R R R R R R G G G G G G G G O O O O R R R R O O O _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ UP UP UP AD AD AD AD AD UP DN DN UP DN DN UP UP B (L T) P A R T 1 1 0 0. 5

5200 YONGE STREET - LoopNet...R R O R R R R R R G G G G G G G G O O O O R R R R O O O _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ UP UP UP AD AD AD AD AD UP DN DN UP DN DN UP UP B (L T) P A R T 1 1 0 0. 5

Yukon College | Yukon College - k i n g g e o r g e g o …...Alaska Journal of Anthropology vol. 5, no. 1 (2007) 95 k i n g g e o r g e g o t d i a r r h e a: t h e y u k o n-a l

Yukon College | Yukon College - k i n g g e o r g e g o …...Alaska Journal of Anthropology vol. 5, no. 1 (2007) 95 k i n g g e o r g e g o t d i a r r h e a: t h e y u k o n-a l

R 255 G 211 B 8 R 255 G 175 B 0 R 127 G 16 B 162 R 163 G 166 B 173 R 137 G 146 B 155 R 175 G 0 B 51 R 52 G 195 B 51 R 0 G 0 B 0 R 255 G 255 B 255 Primary.

R 255 G 211 B 8 R 255 G 175 B 0 R 127 G 16 B 162 R 163 G 166 B 173 R 137 G 146 B 155 R 175 G 0 B 51 R 52 G 195 B 51 R 0 G 0 B 0 R 255 G 255 B 255 Primary.

(G) R-5775(G) / R-5670(G) Technical Reportstreamlinecircuits.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Megtron6GR5775G.pdfPanasonic Confidential (G) R-5775(G) / R-5670(G) Technical Report June

(G) R-5775(G) / R-5670(G) Technical Reportstreamlinecircuits.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Megtron6GR5775G.pdfPanasonic Confidential (G) R-5775(G) / R-5670(G) Technical Report June

WAN J. KIM LEE R. SELTMAN (CA Bar No. 168857) · LEE R. SELTMAN (CA Bar No. 168857) MARY R. BOHAN (DC Bar No. 420628) WILLIAM G. MADDOX (DC Bar No. 000020540) JACQUELINE CUNCANNAN

WAN J. KIM LEE R. SELTMAN (CA Bar No. 168857) · LEE R. SELTMAN (CA Bar No. 168857) MARY R. BOHAN (DC Bar No. 420628) WILLIAM G. MADDOX (DC Bar No. 000020540) JACQUELINE CUNCANNAN

Recreational Boating Guide – Yarra and Maribyrnong Riversparkweb.vic.gov.au/.../pdf_file/...boating-guide-Yarra-Maribyrnong.pdf · Bridge R R R R Y Y Y Y G NO BOATING NO BOATING

Recreational Boating Guide – Yarra and Maribyrnong Riversparkweb.vic.gov.au/.../pdf_file/...boating-guide-Yarra-Maribyrnong.pdf · Bridge R R R R Y Y Y Y G NO BOATING NO BOATING

R G B G B R B R TipsandTrickstoMaximizecdns.benefitfocus.com/netstorage/corporatesite/... · R:179 G:35 B:23 R:234 G:143 B:29 R:160 G:206 B:103 R:0 G:154 B:200 R:101 G:143 B:40 R:0

R G B G B R B R TipsandTrickstoMaximizecdns.benefitfocus.com/netstorage/corporatesite/... · R:179 G:35 B:23 R:234 G:143 B:29 R:160 G:206 B:103 R:0 G:154 B:200 R:101 G:143 B:40 R:0

8 027908 360564 - Amazon Web Services ARES... · 5 1 2 Connection of 1 pair of non-tested photocells ... au-G r is-G r ijs G r i g o-G e y-G r is-G r au-r is-G r ijs SCA/2°CH Led

8 027908 360564 - Amazon Web Services ARES... · 5 1 2 Connection of 1 pair of non-tested photocells ... au-G r is-G r ijs G r i g o-G e y-G r is-G r au-r is-G r ijs SCA/2°CH Led

e, &J., 4.3* 31 , as J,s.JY - (J.;ts, . , ) PET ( ) 1 ... · Naro , Krs (g) r NO (g) 11 J—SI ož,s-f (K) , SOY SOY (g) + Or (g) SO r (g) + q (It J, , (Hr) , us." jl J+ I r (g) +

e, &J., 4.3* 31 , as J,s.JY - (J.;ts, . , ) PET ( ) 1 ... · Naro , Krs (g) r NO (g) 11 J—SI ož,s-f (K) , SOY SOY (g) + Or (g) SO r (g) + q (It J, , (Hr) , us." jl J+ I r (g) +

EPTD Discussion Paper No. 127 - ageconsearch.umn.edu · Da Ton Reser. Ta n G ian g R ese r. ... Ba u Tr an g la ke Loc Qu an g R ese r. Ta n la p Rese r. ... BCM of Mekong flows.

EPTD Discussion Paper No. 127 - ageconsearch.umn.edu · Da Ton Reser. Ta n G ian g R ese r. ... Ba u Tr an g la ke Loc Qu an g R ese r. Ta n la p Rese r. ... BCM of Mekong flows.

G R I N S , G R I T & G R A C E

G R I N S , G R I T & G R A C E

Applied Materials Confidential R 140 G 140 B 140 R 220 G 220 B 220 R 69 G 153 B 195 R 254 G 203 B 0 R 255 G 121 B 1 R 234 G 40 B 57 R 155 G 238 B 255 R.

Applied Materials Confidential R 140 G 140 B 140 R 220 G 220 B 220 R 69 G 153 B 195 R 254 G 203 B 0 R 255 G 121 B 1 R 234 G 40 B 57 R 155 G 238 B 255 R.

downloads.caraga.dilg.gov.phdownloads.caraga.dilg.gov.ph/Legal Ops/13-19.pdfand effective as an ordinance (Favis vs. City of Baguio, G. R. No. L-29910, April 25, ... G. R. No. 107916,

downloads.caraga.dilg.gov.phdownloads.caraga.dilg.gov.ph/Legal Ops/13-19.pdfand effective as an ordinance (Favis vs. City of Baguio, G. R. No. L-29910, April 25, ... G. R. No. 107916,