DANILO B. PARADA, complainant, vs.

JUDGE LORENZO B. VENERACION, RTC, BRANCH 47, MANILA, respondent.

A.M. No. RTJ-96-1353. March 11, 1997
TORRES, JR., J.

Facts

Danilo Parada was charged with 4 counts of Estafa. He was duly bonded with an accredited
bonding company. On Oct. 23, 1993, Parada notified the Manila (MNL) RTC and the Manager of
the bonding company that he had changed his address. On Feb, 8, 1994, Judge Ortile inhibited
himself so case was re-raffled to Judge Veneracion’s s ala, and set the cases for dates on
June 3-8. The notice of hearing however was sent to Parada’s former address and so he failed to
attend said hearings. Because of that, respondent Judge ordered his arrest and the confiscation
of the bond, and conducted a trial in absentia. Parada was found guilty of estafa. Parada filed with
the SC the instant complaint in connection with the decision and orders of Judge Veneracion in
that he is ignorant of the law as displayed by (1) his not following the legal requirements of a valid
trial in absentia, (2) his ordering of an arrest without a recommendation of bail, and (3) his denying
the motion present evidence upon his arrest.

Issue

Whether the trial in absentia was conducted in violation of accused’s right to notice of hearing?

Ruling

The Court held that trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that
he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. The requisites then of a valid
trial in absentia are: (1) the accused has already been arraigned, (2) he has been duly notified of
the trial, and (3) his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

In the case at bar, requisites two and three of a valid trial in absentia are clearly wanting. Parada
had not been duly notified of the trial because the notice of hearing was sent to his former address
despite his formal notification to the court of such change. His failure to appear therefore is
justified.

Moreover, where a party appears by attorney in an action or proceeding in a court of record, all
notices required to be given therein must be given to the attorney of record. Parada’s counsel
submitted notice before, so Judge Veneracion should have already taken cognizance of the new
address.