FACTS:

In 1990, the Secretary of the Department of Tourism and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA), Peter D. Garrucho, requested the Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation, Andrea Domingo, to issue Hold Departure Orders against Ramon Binamira and Faustino Roberto. This request was made in connection with an investigation by the Department of Justice into anomalous transactions involving the PTA. Commissioner Domingo granted the request and issued Hold Departure Orders against Binamira and Roberto. Roberto filed a complaint for prohibition and damages against Garrucho and Domingo, while Binamira filed a complaint-in-intervention in the case. The trial court ruled in favor of Binamira, ordering Garrucho and Domingo to pay damages and declaring the Hold Departure Order against Binamira to be void ab initio. Garrucho and Domingo appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), but their counsel failed to file their brief. As a result, the CA dismissed their appeal. Binamira then obtained a writ of execution against Garrucho, who filed a petition for certiorari seeking to nullify the CA resolutions and the writ of execution. He claimed that he never received copies of the CA resolutions because he had resigned as Secretary of the Department of Tourism and moved offices.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petitioner was denied due process when he did not receive copies of the resolutions and orders from the Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court.

2. Whether the Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court erred in issuing the resolutions and orders without taking judicial notice of the petitioner's resignation and change of office.

RULING:

1. The Court found that the petitioner was denied due process when he did not receive copies of the resolutions and orders from the Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court. The failure to properly serve notices and copies of the said resolutions and orders to the petitioner violates his right to due process.

2. The Court ruled that the Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court erred in issuing the resolutions and orders without taking judicial notice of the petitioner's resignation and change of office. The courts should have taken judicial notice of these facts in order to properly serve notices and copies to the petitioner.

PRINCIPLES:

• Denial of due process - Failure to properly serve notices and copies to a party violates their right to due process.

• Judicial notice - Courts are obliged to take judicial notice of certain facts without the need for the parties to present evidence.