Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
**
versus
Promulgated:
THE
HONORABLE
PRESIDING
JUDGE
OF
REGIONAL
TRIAL
COURT
28 OCT 2010
OF
LAS
PIAS,
BRANCH
198,
HON.
ERLINDA
NICOLAS-ALVARO
and
ANTONIO V. MARTEL,
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
REYES, JR., J.C., J.:
This is a Petition for Certiorari filed pursuant to Rule 65 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the April 29, 2009 Order
(Rollo, p. 17) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Pinas City,
Branch 198, in Civil Case No. LP-02-0248, which dismissed
petitioners' Complaint for failure of the parties and their counsel to
appear for pre-trial despite notice, pursuant to Section 5, Rule 18 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
On September 27, 2002, herein petitioners filed before the RTC
of Las Pinas City, a Complaint for Quieting of Title (Rollo, pp. 21-34)
*
Acting Junior Member per Office Order No. 307-10-ABR dated October 22, 2010.
2.
3.
4
GIVEN
THE
PREVAILING
The pivotal issue in the instant case is whether or not the RTC
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess
of jurisdiction when it dismissed petitioners' Complaint for Quieting of
Title on the ground that herein petitioners failed to appear during the
pre-trial of the case.
It must be emphasized that a pre-trial is mandatory and
plaintiff's absence therein can result to the dismissal of the case.
Thus, Section 4 and 5 of Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
provide:
SEC. 4.
Appearance of Parties. It shall be the duty
of the parties and their counsel to appear at the pre-trial. The nonappearance of a party may be excused only if a valid cause is
shown therefor or if a representative shall appear in his behalf fully
authorized in writing to enter into an amicable settlement, to
submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into
stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents.
SEC. 5.
Effect of failure to appear. The failure of the
plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the next preceding
section shall be cause for dismissal of the action. The dismissal
shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court. A
similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be cause to allow
the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and the court to
render judgment on the basis thereof.
records do not show that the new counsel was formally furnished with
the notice of the pre-trial.
counsel of petitioners to inquire from the RTC whether or not the pretrial had in fact been scheduled on the date as suggested, it is still the
duty of the court to serve the notice of pre-trial to the parties, and
such duty should not be shifted to the counsels of the parties (or to
the parties themselves) (Agulto vs. Tecson, 476 SCRA 395, 407
[2005]). Otherwise, the mandatory character of the notice of pre-trial
will be for naught (ibid.)
At any rate, We see no reason why petitioners' new counsel will
not be given another chance to proceed with the case.
As held by
the Supreme Court, a single instance of non-appearance at the pretrial does not amount to willlful disregard of the orders of the lower
court and will not justify the dismissal of the complaint (Paguirigan
vs. Pilhino Sales Corporation, 494 SCRA 384, 391-392 [2006]). As in
this case, petitioners' new counsel explained to the satisfaction of this
Court that his non-appearance (for the first time) was caused merely
by an honest and unintentional mistake on his part. Indeed, in the
absence of a pattern or a scheme to delay the disposition of the case
or a wanton failure to observe the mandatory requirement of the rules
on the part of the plaintiff, Courts should decide to dispense rather
than wield their authority to dismiss (Spouses Leyba vs. Rural Bank
of Cabuyao, Inc., 571 SCRA 160, 164 [2008], cited case omitted).
As held by the Supreme Court:
Unless a party's conduct is so negligent, irresponsible,
contumacious, or dilatory as to provide substantial grounds for
dismissal for non-appearance, the courts should consider lesser
sanctions which would still amount into achieving the desired end.
Inconsiderate dismissals, even if without prejudice, do not
constitute a panacea nor a solution to the congestion of court
dockets, while they lend a deceptive aura of efficiency to records of
the individual judges, they merely postpone the ultimate reckoning
between the parties. In the absence of clear lack of merit or
intention to delay, justice is better served by a brief continuance,
trial on the merits, and final disposition of the cases before the
court. (Paguirigan vs. Pilhino Sales Corporation, 494 SCRA 160,
163 [2006], citing Ruiz vs. Estenzo, 186 SCRA 8 [1990] and
Macasa vs. Herrera, 101 Phil. 44 [1957]).
DANTON Q. BUESER
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.