1.trocio Vs Labayo.docx

ARTURO TROCIO v. GEORGE LABAYO [G.R. No. L-35701. September 19, 1973.] FACTS: 

 

  

 

Sometime in August 1964, petitioner filed in the CFI of Misamis Oriental a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injuction against respondents to set aside a decision of Abelardo Subido dismissing him from the position of Municipal Treasurer of Mambujao, Camiguin, which is being enforced by the other respondents on the ground of its nullity. He contended that the charges against him for neglect of duty, grave misconduct and oppression in office were not duly proved, there being a denial of a motion for postponement on his part. There was a written opposition to the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, and an answer to such petition wherein it was stressed that petitioner had been granted by the investigating officer 6 postponements of the hearing of the case to afford him to engage the services of counsel. Then a notice to the parties that the case had been set for hearing on October 14, 1964, a copy was served on petitioner’s counsel. Upon the case being called on that date, there was a motion on the part of petitioner’s counsel to set the case for pre-trial. The provincial fiscal representing the respondents informed the Court that he was ready for pre-trial but, if no amicable agreement was reached, the trial proper should be conducted. The counsel for petitioner insisted that the notice of hearing as such was null and void. When the Court inquired as to where petitioner was, counsel answered that he was in Cebu City, upon his own advice, on the assumption that a hearing on the merits could not be held. The court viewed this as a dilatory tactic, because it was raised only on that morning, though the notice was sent as far back as September 10, 1964 and at any rate, the pre-trial could not anyway be held because petitioner was not present. Hence, the order of dismissal, based on lack of interest to prosecute the case.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused was a denied of procedural due process when the notice of hearing did not specify that it should be for pre-trial. HELD:   

NO. The contention of the petitioner that the notice of hearing should specify that it was for pretrial is unmeritorious. A hearing as known to the law is not confined to a trial but embraces the several stages of litigation. It does not preclude the pre-trial. In the case of Permanent Concret Products, Inc. v. Teodoro, it was held that “Pre-trial is primarily intended to make certain that all issues necessary to the disposition of a cause are properly raised. Thus, to obviate the element of surprise, parties are expected to disclose at



 

a pre-trial conference all issues of law and fact which they intend to raise at the trial, except such as may involve privilege or impeaching matter.” The petitioner had more than a month, from September 9 to October 14, to seek clarification of the nature of the scheduled hearing. What was even more revealing as to his lack of good faith was his absence on the day of hearings. This indicated lack of interest to prosecute. Instead of this futile insistence on a pre-trial, petitioner could have impressed on the court the legal support for his stand that the order of dismissal by respondent Commissioner of Civil Service was devoid of legality. He did nothing of the kind. Thus, the order of the lower court, dismissing the petition is affirmed.