Barde vs. Posiquit

Notice of the pre-trial conference must be served not only upon the counsel but also upon the party litigants; failure to provide personal notice renders all subsequent proceedings null and void for violating due process.

The case involves a dispute among the heirs of the late spouses Claro Barde and Juana Cordial over a 173-square-meter residential lot in Ligao, Albay. After the spouses' deaths, their son Pedro registered the property exclusively in his name via an affidavit of adjudication, falsely claiming to be the sole heir. This excluded his siblings, Brigida and Rafael, and their respective heirs.

• Original Filing: Court of First Instance of Albay, Civil Case No. 3606 (Complaint for Reconveyance and Partition with Damages)
• Lower Court Decision: April 6, 1968 — Decision in favor of plaintiffs-appellees, ordering partition into 3 equal parts.
• Post-Decision Motions: May 9, 1968 — Motion for New Trial denied (May 11, 1968). July 4, 1968 — Petition for Relief from Judgment denied (July 22, 1968).
• SC Action: Appeal via Record on Appeal from the CFI Order denying the Petition for Relief from Judgment.

• The Estate and Exclusion: Late spouses Claro Barde and Juana Cordial owned a 173 sqm residential lot (OCT No. RO-14356). They had three children: Brigida, Pedro, and Rafael. After both parents died, Pedro registered the land solely in his name through an affidavit of adjudication, falsely declaring himself the only son and sole heir.
• The Lawsuit and Defense: Pedro died on July 12, 1967. On December 31, 1967, Brigida and Rafael's heirs (Josefina and Vilma) filed a complaint for Reconveyance and Partition against Pedro's heirs (Socorro Posiquit, et al.). Pedro's heirs admitted the co-ownership but claimed Brigida had waived her share for P150.00, and that Claro verbally willed the land to them in exchange for caring for him during his illness. They filed a counterclaim for funeral and medical reimbursement.
• The Pre-trial Notice Issue: On January 23, 1968, the CFI sent a pre-trial notice only to defendants' counsel (Atty. Jaucian), without sending separate notices to the defendants themselves. The notice was returned unclaimed, as was the order setting the hearing for April 5, 1968.
• The Void Proceedings: On April 5, 1968, the CFI allowed plaintiffs to present evidence ex parte due to the absence of defendants and their counsel. On April 6, 1968, the CFI rendered a decision ordering the partition of the land into three equal parts and awarding P100.00 as attorney's fees to the plaintiffs.
• Subsequent Motions: Defendants filed a Motion for New Trial (denied). Plaintiffs moved for execution and appointment of a commissioner (granted). Defendants hired a new lawyer and filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment, arguing they were never notified of the pre-trial. The CFI denied the petition, holding that notice to counsel was sufficient.

• The Petition for Relief from Judgment is the proper remedy and was filed on time.
• The CFI's orders and proceedings from the pre-trial notice onward were null and void for violating due process because the defendants were never personally notified.
• The CFI erred in ruling that notice to appellants' former counsel binds the appellants; the negligent acts of counsel regarding pre-trial appearance should not bind the clients.

• The Petition for Relief from Judgment was filed out of time.
• Notice to appellants' counsel is sufficient to bind the appellants because the presence of the parties during pre-trial is not indispensable.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether notice of the pre-trial conference to counsel alone is sufficient to bind the party litigants.
  • Whether the timeliness of the Petition for Relief from Judgment matters if the underlying judgment is void.
  • Substantive Issues: N/A

• Procedural:
  • Notice to counsel alone is insufficient to bind the party litigants. Under the Revised Rules of Court, pre-trial is mandatory, and the court must direct both the parties and their attorneys to appear. One of the main purposes of pre-trial is to consider amicable settlement, and under Section 23, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, attorneys cannot compromise their client's litigation without special authority. Therefore, the parties themselves must be notified.
  • The timeliness of the Petition for Relief from Judgment is immaterial. Because the defendants were denied due process (no notice of pre-trial), all subsequent proceedings and the resulting judgment are void ab initio. A void judgment is non-existent, cannot acquire finality, and may be attacked directly or collaterally even after the period for appeal or review has lapsed.
  • Substantive: N/A

• Mandatory Pre-trial Notice to Parties — Under the Revised Rules of Court, pre-trial is mandatory. Both the parties and their counsel must be notified to appear. Notice to counsel alone is insufficient because attorneys cannot compromise their client's litigation without special authority, and amicable settlement is a primary purpose of pre-trial.
• Void Judgments — A judgment rendered without due process is void ab initio. A void judgment is non-existent, cannot acquire finality, and may be attacked directly or collaterally at any time, even after the period to appeal or review has lapsed.

• Section 1, Rule 20, Rules of Court — Requires the court to direct the parties and their attorneys to appear for pre-trial. Applied to emphasize that the parties' presence is required, not just their counsel's.
• Section 23, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Attorneys cannot compromise their client's litigation without special authority. Applied as the primary rationale for requiring personal notice to the parties, since amicable settlement is a key goal of pre-trial.