THIRDDIVISION

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

JUDGEMARIANOJOAQUINS.MACIAS,petitioner,vs.MARGIECORPUSMACIAS,respondent.
DECISION
SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,J.:

Dueprocessistheveryessenceofjusticeitself.Wheretheruleoflawisthebedrockofourfreesociety,justiceisitsverylifeblood.Denialofdueprocessis
thusnolessthanadenialofjustice.[1]
BeforeusisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,asamended,assailingtheDecision[2]datedJuly13,2001and
theResolution[3]datedAugust30,2001,bothrenderedbytheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.64733,MargieCorpusMaciasvs.Hon.WilfredoG.Ochotorena
andHon.JudgeMarianoJoaquinS.Macias.
Thefactualantecedentsasbornebytherecordsare:
OnFebruary6,2001,JudgeMarianoJoaquinS.Macias(hereinpetitioner)filedwiththeRegionalTrialCourt,Branch11,Sindangan,ZamboangadelNorte,a
petitionfordeclarationofnullityofmarriageagainstMargieCorpusMacias(hereinrespondent),docketedasCivilCaseNo.S695.
Thesheriffexertedearnesteffortstopersonallyservecopiesofthesummonsandcomplaintupontherespondent,buttonoavail.Hence,thetrialcourt,upon
petitionersmotion,issuedanOrderdatedMarch7,2001directingthatsummonsbeeffectedbypublicationinanewspaperofgeneralcirculationintheprovinceof
ZamboangadelNorteandthetwincitiesofDapitanandDipologandthereafterrequiringtherespondenttofileheranswerwithinaperiodofthirty(30)daysfrom
notice.
Subsequently,thesummonsandcomplaintwerepublishedintheMarch11to17,2001issuesoftheDipologbasednewspaperTingogPeninsula.
Insteadoffilingananswer,respondent,throughcounsel,onApril10,2001,filedamotiontodismissthepetitiononthefollowinggrounds:(1)thecauseofaction
isbarredbythestatuteoflimitations(2)thetrialcourthasnojurisdictionbecauseitisnotamongthosedesignatedtoactasafamilycourtunderResolutionA.M.No.
991107SCand(3)thepartiesfailedtoresorttobarangayconciliationpriortothefilingofthepetition.
OnApril19,2001,thetrialcourtissuedanOrderdenyingrespondentsmotiontodismiss.Incidentally,inthesameOrder,thetrialcourtgrantedrespondents
request(vialongdistancetelephonecall)tosetthehearingonApril30,2001.
ThehearingsetonApril30,2001wascancelledforfailureofrespondentandcounselaswellastheexpertwitnesstoappear.Onthesameday,thetrialcourt

issuedanOrdersettingthehearinganewonMay2and3,2001.RespondentreceivedacopyofthisOrderonlyonMay8,2001.Thus,whenthecasewascalled
forhearingasscheduled,respondentandcounsel,notbeingdulynotified,didnotappear.Surprisingly,thetrialcourtallowedthepetitionertopresenthisevidence
exparte.
Afterthepetitionerrestedhiscase,thetrialcourtissuedanOrderdatedMay3,2001(1)directingthepublicprosecutortosubmitaCertificationcontaininghis
assentoroppositiontothepetition(2)directingthepetitionerandthepublicprosecutortosubmittheirrespectivememorandawithinanonextendibleperiodoften
(10)daysand(3)declaringthecasesubmittedfordecision.
OnMay5,2001,respondentstillunawarethatthecasehadbeensubmittedfordecision,filedamotionforreconsiderationoftheOrderdatedApril19,2001
denyinghermotiontodismiss.ThetrialcourtmerelynotedthemotionforreconsiderationinhisOrderdatedMay16,2001.
Consequently,onMay18,2001,respondentfiledwiththeCourtofAppealsapetitionforcertiorariwithprayerforissuanceofatemporaryrestrainingorderand/or
awritofpreliminaryinjunctionchallengingthetrialcourtsOrderdatedApril19,2001whichdeniedhermotiontodismissandOrderdatedApril30,2001cancelling
theApril30,2001hearingandresettingitonMay2and3,2001.
Actingthereon,theCourtofAppeals,inaResolutiondatedMay23,2001,enjoinedthetrialcourtfromconductingfurtherproceedingsinCivilCaseNo.S695.
Meanwhile,onMay15,2001orbarelytwelve(12)daysfromsubmissionofthecasefordecision,thetrialcourtrendereditsDecisiondeclaringthenullityofthe
marriagebetweenthepartiesonthegroundofpsychologicalincapacityonthepartofhereinrespondent.Thereupon,shefiledamotionforreconsideration.This
motionhasnotbeenactedupon.
Meantime,onJuly13,2001,theCourtofAppealsrenderedaDecisiongrantingrespondentspetitionforcertiorari,thus:
TheissuethatnowcomestoforeiswhetherornotthePetitionerwasdeprived,bytheRespondentCourt,ofherrighttodueprocessenshrinedinArticleIII,Section1ofthe1987
Constitution,viaitsOrders,AnnexesLandOofthePetition,anditsDecision.
xxxxxxxxx
Inthepresentrecourse,thehearingsofthecomplaintofthePrivateRespondent,onitsmerits,beforetheissueswerejoinedwasafarce,ablatanttransgressionbytheRespondentsof
thefundamentalrightofthePetitionertodueprocess.Takingstockoftheantecedentalmilieuinthepresentrecourse,Weareconvinced,beyondcavil,thateithertheRespondent
CourtwasignorantofthebasicrudimentsofCivilProcedureorifhewasawareofsaidRulesasheshould,hesimplyignoredthesame,ranroughshodovertherightsofthe
Petitioner,railroadedthehearingofthecaseandrenderedjudgmentevenbeforethePetitionerhadtheopportunitytodefendherselfandadduceherevidence.
xxxxxxxxx
ThereisnoevidenceonrecordwhenthePetitionerwasservedwiththecomplaintandsummonsbyregisteredmail.However,thePetitionerlearnedofthecomplaintandsummons
aboutthefirstweekofApril,2001onthebasisoftheMarch1117,2001issueoftheTingogPeninsula.EvenifthethirtydayperiodfixedbytheRespondentCourtwasreckoned
fromtheMarch1117,2001issueoftheTingogPeninsula,thePetitionerhaduntilApril16,2001withinwhichtofileaMotiontoDismissunderSection1,Rule16ofthe1997
RulesofCivilProcedureorfileanAnswertothecomplaint.However,sheoptedtofile,onApril10,2001,aMotiontoDismiss,insteadoffilinganAnswertothecomplaint.The
filingofsaidmotionsuspendedtheperiodforhertofileherAnswertothecomplaint.UntilsaidmotionisresolvedbytheRespondentCourtwithfinality,itbehoovedthe
RespondentCourttosuspendthehearingsofthecaseonthemerits.TheRespondentCourt,onApril19,2001,issueditsOrderdenyingtheMotiontoDismissofthePetitioner.

UnderSection6,Rule16ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,thePetitionerhadthebalanceoftheperiodprovidedforinRule11ofthesaidRulesbutinnocaselessthanfive(5)
dayscomputedfromserviceonheroftheaforesaidOrderoftheRespondentCourtwithinwhichtofileherAnswertothecomplaint:
xxxxxxxxx
ThePetitionermayfileaMotionforReconsiderationofsaidOrderconformablywithSection5,Rule135oftheRulesofCourt.
Untilthen,ahearingofthecaseonitsmeritsisimpermissibleandatravesty.However,evenbeforethePetitionercouldbeservedwithacopyoftheorderoftheRespondentCourt
(AnnexLofthePetition)denyingherMotiontoDismiss,theRespondentCourtproceededwiththehearingofthecaseonitsmeritsandreceivedtheevidenceofthePrivate
RespondentonMay2and3,2001.Asitwas,Petitioner,throughcounsel,receivedonlyonMay3,2001theOrderoftheRespondentCourt(AnnexLofthePetition)denyingher
MotiontoDismissand,onMay5,2001,thePetitionerfiledaMotionforReconsiderationoftheOrderoftheRespondentCourt,datedApril19,2001.
WhatissotriteisthattheRespondentCourtviolateditsownOrderdatedFebruary27,2001,declaringthatthehearingofthecaseonitsmeritswillensueonlyafterthePetitioner
shallhavefiledherAnswertothecomplaint.
EquallyworrisomeisthefactthatthePetitionerremindedtheRespondentCourt,inherManifestationandMotion,datedApril18,2001,thatthecasewasnotripeforhearingonits
meritsandprayedthatthehearingofthecaseonitsmeritsbesuspendeduntilafterfinalresolutionbytheRespondentCourtofherMotiontoDismiss:
xxxxxxxxx
EvenifthePetitionerfailedtofileherAnswertothecomplaint,aftertheperiodthereforhadlapsed,theRespondentCourtwasnotauthorizedtoconductahearingofthecaseonits
merits.ThisissobecauseSection3(e),Rule9ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedurespecificallyprovidesthat:
(c)Wherenodefaultsallowed.Ifthedefendingpartyinanactionforannulmentordeclarationofnullityofmarriageorforlegalseparationfailstoanswer,thecourtshall
ordertheprosecutingattorneytoinvestigatewhetherornotacollusionbetweenthepartiesexists,andifthereisnocollusion,tointervenefortheStateinordertoseetoitthatthe
evidencesubmittedisnotfabricated.(idem,supra.)
TheReportofthePublicProsecutorisaconditionsinequanontofurtherproceedingsofthecaseonitsmerits.TheRespondentCourtignoredtheaforequotedRule.Itbears
stressingthatthePetitionerhadalreadyfiledherMotiontoDismissand,hence,canbenotifiedbythePublicProsecutorofhisinvestigation.
xxxxxxxxx
INLIGHTOFALLTHEFOREGOING,thePetitionisGIVENDUECOURSEandGRANTED.ThehearingsofthecaseonthemeritsonMay2and3,2001,includingthe
DecisionoftheRespondentCourt,areNULLIFIED.TheRespondentCourtisherebyorderedtoresolvetheMotionforReconsiderationofthePetitionerdatedMay5,2001,after
thePrivateRespondentshallhavefiledhisCommentorOppositiontosaidmotionand,thereafter,toproceedwiththecaseasprovidedforbytheRulesofCourt.
SOORDERED.
FromthesaidDecision,petitionerfiledamotionforreconsideration,butitwasdenied.

Hence,thispetitionforreviewoncertiorari.
Petitioner vehemently asserts that the Court of Appeals seriously erred in holding that the trial court deprived respondent of her right to due process and in
nullifying,notonlytheMay2and3,2001hearings,butalsothetrialcourtsDecisiondatedMay15,2001.
WeagreewiththeCourtofAppeals.
ThisCourtwillnotcountenanceadenialofonesfundamentalrighttodueprocess,whichisacornerstoneofourlegalsystem.[4]
In the case at bar, the trial court did not observe the rudimentary principle of due process enshrined in our Constitution.Neither did it comply with pertinent
proceduralrules.
More to the point, the trial court, without even waiting for respondents motion for reconsideration of the April 19, 2001 Order denying her motion to dismiss,
hurriedlysetthecaseforhearing.Also,withoutallowingtherespondenttofileheranswertothepetitionandknowingtherewasnojoinderofissuesasyet,thetrial
courthastilyauthorizedpetitionertopresenthisevidenceexparte.
PursuanttoSection3(e),Rule9ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,asamended,wherethedefendingpartyfailstofilehisorheranswertothepetition,the
trialcourtshouldordertheprosecutortointervenefortheStatebyconductinganinvestigationtodeterminewhetherornottherewascollusionbetweentheparties.
Here,thetrialcourtdisregardedsuchprocedure.Obviously,thesummaryproceedingisapatentnullity.
Andassumingarguendothattherewasananswerfiledbytherespondent,still,thehearingofthecaseonMay2and3,2001isaproceduralflaw.Asstatedat
theoutset,respondentreceivedthenoticeofhearingonlyonMay8,2001.SohowcouldshebepresentincourtonMay2and3?
Weareconvincedthatrespondentsfundamentalrighttodueprocesswasblatantlytransgressedbythetrialcourt.Andresultantly,theproceedingsconducted,
includingthetrialcourtsDecision,arevoidforlackofdueprocess.
Wehaveconsistentlyheldthatadenialofdueprocesssufficestocastontheofficialacttakenbywhateverbranchofthegovernmenttheimpressofnullity.[5]
InUyvs.CourtofAppeals,weruledthat(a)decisionisvoidforlackofdueprocessif,asaresult,aparty(asinthiscase)isdeprivedoftheopportunityofbeing
heard.Avoiddecisionmaybeassailedorimpugnedatanytimeeitherdirectlyorcollaterally,bymeansofaseparateaction,orbyresistingsuchdecisioninany
actionorproceedingwhereitisinvoked.[6]
Indeed,indeprivingrespondentherconstitutionalandproceduralrighttodueprocess,thetrialcourtgravelyabuseditsdiscretion.Itis,therefore,imperativethat
theinstantcasefordeclarationofnullityofmarriagebelitigatedanewinaccordancewiththeRules.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.TheassailedDecisiondatedJuly13,2001andResolutiondatedAugust30,2001oftheCourtofAppealsarehereby
AFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
Puno,(Chairman),Panganiban,Corona,andCarpioMorales,JJ.,concur.
[1]J.Panganiban,SeparateOpinioninSerranovs.NLRC,G.R.No.117040,January27,2000,323SCRA445,545.

[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).