September 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 197622 : September 05, 2011]
M-3 INTERNATIONAL PACKAGING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MARIANO QUA, PETITIONER, - VERSUS - HON. MARIE CHRISTINE A. JACOB, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 100, QUEZON CITY; METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY; AND OILINK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 197622 - M-3 INTERNATIONAL PACKAGING CORPORATION, represented by its President, MARIANO QUA, Petitioner, - versus - HON. MARIE CHRISTINE A. JACOB, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 100, Quezon City; METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY; and OILINK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Respondents.
The Factual Antecedents
On December 13, 2004, petitioner M-3 International Packaging Corporation, represented by its President Mariano Qua, filed a complaint for injunction with prayer for a temporary restraining order against private respondents Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company and Oilink International Corporation with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 100 (RTC). The petitioner subsequently filed an amended complaint for sum of money with damages. After the private respondents filed their responsive pleading, the case was set for pre-trial conference. At the pre-trial conference on January 23, 2007, neither the petitioner nor its counsel appeared despite due notice. Upon motion, the RTC dismissed the case pursuant to the Rules of Court.
Upon the petitioner's motion, the RTC (citing relaxation of the application of technical rules) reconsidered its January 23, 2007 dismissal order taking into account the arrival, albeit late, of the petitioner's counsel at the hearing. Accordingly, the case was again set for pre-trial on February 3, 2008. The pre-trial was cancelled and reset to May 9, 2008. On May 9, 2008, the parties were required to undergo preliminary conference for pre-marking of their documentary exhibits. The preliminary conference was set on June 4, 2008, while the pre-trial was scheduled on July 22, 2008. The petitioner and its counsel failed to appear at the preliminary conference. The same was reset to June 25, 2008, but the petitioner and its counsel again failed to appear. Subsequently, the case was set again for preliminary conference on November 11, 2008, and the pre-trial on February 13, 2009. On November 11, 2008, the petitioner and its counsel did not appear. At the scheduled pre-trial on February 13, 2009, the petitioner and its counsel again failed to appear despite due notice. Upon joint motion of the private respondents, the RTC dismissed the case without prejudice (for the second time) pursuant to the Rules of Court. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration claiming that its counsel arrived in court ten (10) minutes late on February 13, 2009 allegedly due to heavy traffic. On March 30, 2009, the RTC issued an order denying the motion, citing the petitioner's previous procedural transgressions and the fallacy of its claim that its counsel arrived in court merely ten (10) minutes late. The RTC noted that the order of dismissal was issued only after the second call of the case which was at 9:08 a.m., while the session started at 8:30 a.m.
The CA Ruling
The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), praying for a liberal construction of the rules of procedure in its favor. The CA upheld the dismissal of the case, holding that the petitioner abused the trial court's leniency when it repeatedly failed to appear at the preliminary conference and at the pre-trial. The CA emphasized that while rules of procedure must be liberally construed, it may not be ignored or set aside at will to suit the convenience, whim or caprice of a party. More importantly, the CA noted that the petitioner failed to show a compelling reason for the court to brush aside the rules on pre-trial.
The Petition
In support of its petition, the petitioner implores the Court to exercise its equity jurisdiction and disregard the procedural lapses it committed. The petitioner cites Calalang v. Court of Appeals[1] where the Court held:
Considering the fact that the counsel for the plaintiff/respondent bank did arrive for the pre-trial conference, though a bit late and that counsel for the defendant was himself also late, the trial court should have called the case again. An admonition to both counsel to be more prompt in appearing before the Court as scheduled would have sufficed, instead of having dismissed the complaint outright.
Our Ruling
We deny the petition.
The CA correctly affirmed
the RTC's dismissal of the case
Section 4, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court mandates that it shall be the duty of the parties and their counsel to appear at the pre-trial.[2] Section 5 of the same Rule provides that the failure of the plaintiff to appear when so required shall be the cause for dismissal of the action without prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.[3] In the present case, it is undisputed that the petitioner and its counsel failed to appear at the preliminary conference and at the pre-trial not only once, but twice. The record also clearly shows the petitioner's callous indifference with the mandatory rules of pre-trial and its apparent lack of interest to proceed with the case.
The petitioner and its
counsel failed to proffer
any valid reason for their
non-appearance at the pre-trial
The petitioner and/or its counsel's non-appearance cannot be excused as Section 4, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 6 of the same Rule, allows only two exceptions: (1) a valid excuse; and (2) the appearance of a representative on behalf of a party who is 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 documents. The petitioner's excuse that its counsel arrived at the last scheduled pre-trial only ten (10) minutes late is belied by the records which clearly show that the court ordered the dismissal of the case after the second call at 9:08 a.m. The unanimous factual findings of the RTC and the CA on this point are conclusive and should be accorded finality. In all, the petitioner has not shown any persuasive or valid reason why it did not appear at the pre-trial and, much less, why it should be exempted from abiding by the rules.
At any rate, even if the petitioner's counsel appeared on time at the pre-trial, the case can still be dismissed since the petitioner failed to appear. It must be emphasized that both the client and his counsel must appear at the pre-trial, pursuant to Section 4, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court.[4] This is mandatory. Failure of the client to appear is a ground for dismissal under Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court.
Treble cost should be
imposed against the
petitioner for filing a
patently frivolous appeal
Sections 2 and 3, Rule 142 of the Rules of Court provide:
Section 2. When action or appeal dismissed. - If an action or appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction or otherwise, the court nevertheless shall have the power to render judgment for costs, as justice may require.
Section 3. Costs when appeal frivolous. - Where an action or an appeal is found to be frivolous, double or treble costs may be imposed on the plaintiff or appellant, which shall be paid by his attorney, if so ordered by the court.
"It has been held that a frivolous appeal is one presenting no justiciable question, or one so readily recognizable as devoid of merit on the face of record that there is little, if any, prospect that it can ever succeed."[5] An appeal is frivolous where on the face of the record there is no prospect of the decision appealed from being reversed or modified. The present case is one such instance in which the appeal is evidently without merit, taken manifestly for delay, in view of the clear, unequivocal and mandatory rules of pre-trial under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court.cralaw
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, we hereby DENY the petition and AFFIRM the challenged decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 109406.
Treble costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] G.R. No. 103185, January 22, 1993, 217 SCRA 462, 470.[2] Section 4. Appearance of parties. � It shall be the duty of the parties and their counsel to appear at the pre-trial. The non-appearance 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.
[3] Section 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.
[4] Jonathan Landoil international Co., Inc. v. Mangudadatu, G.R. No. 155010, August 16, 2004, 436 SCRA 559, 569.
[5] De la Cruz v. Blanco, 73 Phil. 596, 597 (1942).
[6] Vanguard Assurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 159-A Phil. 444, 450 (1975).
[7] Ibid.
* Reyes, J., on official leave; Mendoza, J., designated as Additional member per Special Order No. 1066 dated August 23, 2011.
