Pedro Azul vs Judge Jose Castro & Rosalinda Tecson

Azul owns and operates a construction shop. To finance it he entered a loan agreement with
Tecson in the amount of P391k. Tecson was only able to collect P141k thus leaving about
P250k as a balance. She filed a petition for collection of sum of money before the Rizal RTC and
the case was given to J Sarmiento. On 27 Mar 79, Azul received the copy of the complaint. On
10 Apr 79, Azul filed a motion for a 15 day extension to file for responsive pleading. Azul was
unaware that J Sarmiento retired and was temporarily substituted by J Aover who granted the
extension but only for 5 days starting the next day. But Azul only received the notice granting
such on the 23
rd
of the same month way passed the 5 day period. On the 17
th
of April, Tecson
already filed a motion to dismiss averring that Azuls 5 day extension has already lapsed. On the
18
th
of the same month, J Castro, thepermanent judge to replace J Sarmiento took office and he
ordered Azul to be in default due to the lapse of the 5 day extension. J Castro proceeded with
the reception of evidence the next day and of course without Azuls evidence as he was still
unaware of him being in default. On April 27
th
, J Castro ruled in favor Tecson. On May 2
nd
Azul,
unaware that J Castro already decided the case appealed to remove his default status. On May
7
th
Azul received the decision rendered by the court on Apr 27
th
(but onrecord the date of receipt
was May 5
th
). Azul filed a motion for new trial on June 6th. The lower court denied the same on
the 20
th
of the same month. On Aug 1
st
, Azul filed a notice of appeal it was denied on the 3
rd
but
was reconsidered on the 7
th
hence Azul filed his record on appeal on the 21
st
and J Castro
approved it on the 27
th
but surprisingly upon motion of Tecson on the 30
th
, J Castro set aside its
earlier decisaion on the 27
th
. Finally, J Castro denied the appeal on the 7
th
of September.

ISSUE: Whether or not Azul has been denied due process.

HELD: The SC agreed with the Azul that he was denied due process. The constitutional
provision on due process commands all who wield public authority, but most peremptorily
courts of justice, to strictly maintain standards of fundamental fairness and to insure that
procedural safeguards essential to a fair trial are observed at all stages of a proceeding. It may
be argued that when the Azuls counsel asked for a fifteen (15) day extension from April 11,
1979 to file his answer, it was imprudent and neglectful for him to assume that said first
extension would be granted. However, the records show that Atty. Camaya personally went to
the session hall of the court with his motion for postponement only to be informed that J
Sarmiento had just retired but that his motion would be considered submitted for resolution.
Since the sala was vacant and pairing judges in Quezon City are literally swamped with their
own heavy loads of cases, counsel may be excused for assuming that, at the very least, he had
the requested fifteen (15) days to file his responsive pleading. It is likewise inexplicable why J
Aover, who had not permanently taken over the sala vacated by the retired judge, should
suddenly rule that only a five-day extension would be allowed. And to compound the Azuls
problems, the order was sent by mail and received only twelve (12) days later or after the five-
day period. Before the much publicized Project Mercury of the Bureau of Posts, a court should
have known that court orders requiring acts to be done in a matter of days should not be sent
by mail. Meanwhile, the petitioner was declared in default. The motion to declare defendant in
default is dated April 17, 1979. No copy was furnished the petitioner. It was acted upon on April
18, 1979, the very first day in office of J Castro in Quezon City.