ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[
KING vs. URBINA
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEP 12 2005.
G.R. No. 168570 (Antonio King and Sps. Dewey and Lydia Veloso Yap vs. Evaristo B. Urbina and Traders Royal Bank.)
A Complaint for Annulment of Extrajudicial Foreclosure with Damages was filed by Plaintiffs Antonio King and Spouses Dewey and Lydia Yap against Evaristo B. Urbina and Traders Royal Bank (TRB) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of PasigCity.
Plaintiffs-spouses Yap were the owners of a condominium unit located at Pasig City and more particularly described as follows:
"PHASE/CLUSTER E
"Bldg. No.���������� Unit No.��������� Area (Sq. Mts.)��������� Two Basement Parking
2��������������������� E222�������������� 250.00 sq. mts.�������� E222 of the Space Nos.
Alexandra Condominium Project, which is covered by Condominium Certificate of Title No. PT-12528 of the Registry of Deeds for Pasig, Metro Manila"; . . .
By virtue of a Special Power of Attorney executed by the Spouses
Yap in favor of Antonio King, the latter obtained a loan from Traders Royal
Bank in the amount of P7,509,841.36, using the above-described property
as collateral. Upon failure of King to pay the amount loaned on its due date,
TRB filed on 07 August 1996 a Petition before Evaristo Urbina, Notary Public of
Pasig City, for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the said property. The public
sale of the property was held on 3 October 1998 and the highest bidder was TRB.
A Certificate of Sale was issued in favor of TRB on 8 October 1998.
Subsequently on 24 August 1999, the Certificate of Sale was registered with the
Registry of Deeds of Pasig City.1
Alleging serious irregularities and illegality in the conduct of the foreclosure proceedings, the plaintiffs filed a Complaint dated 14 August 2000,2 for Annulment of Extrajudicial Foreclosure with Damages before the RTC. On 17 July 2001, the RTC dismissed the case for failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the trial court granted in an Order dated 09 January 2002. Despite the reinstatement of the case, plaintiffs still failed to prosecute. In an Order dated 19 July 2002, the RTC dismissed the case anew "for failure of the plaintiffs to prosecute the case for unreasonably long period of time."
Plaintiffs then sought recourse before the Court of Appeals by way of Appeal.3 Plaintiffs-petitioners were given a period of forty-five (45) days to file their brief. An extension of ninety (90) days to file brief was granted. Despite the extension, plaintiffs-petitioners still failed to file the required brief, hence, the dismissal of their appeal in the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 21 October 2003. On 14 November 2003, plaintiffs-petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' Resolution dismissing the Appeal and to admit Appellants' Brief. In the interest of substantial justice, the Court of Appeals reinstated the Appeal in a Resolution dated 27 July 2004.
In a decision dated 28 February 2005,4 the appellate court affirmed the order of dismissal by the RTC and consequently dismissed the appeal. A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in a resolution dated 31 May 2005.5
Hence, this Petition for review on Certiorari before this Court on the grounds that:
A.���� THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING CONDUCTED BY RESPONDENT EVARISTO B. URBINA WAS NULL AND VOID AB INITIO.
B.��� WITH DUE RESPECT, THE DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION IS NOT JUSTIFIED BECAUSE RESPONDENT URBINA HAD NOT YET FILED HIS ANSWER OR RESPONSIVE PLEADING; ENCE, THE DISMISSAL WAS HIGHLY PREMATURE BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS HAD STILL THE REMEDY OF FILING A MOTION TO DECLARE HIM IN DEFAULT.6
The petition is not meritorious. Sec. 3, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, states:
SEC. 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. - If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of defendant or upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court. (Emphasis supplied.)
Dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute an action for an unreasonable length of time rests on the sound discretion of the trial court.7
It must be observed that the complaint was dismissed twice before the RTC and once before the Court of Appeals which constitutes in the words of this Court, an obvious "pattern or scheme" to delay the disposition of this case.
As stated in the case of Marahay v. Melicor,8 the presence of a pattern or 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, justifies the dismissal of the action on the ground of lack of interest to prosecute.
. . . [T]he real test for the exercise of such power is whether, under the circumstances, plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude.
The Court of Appeals correctly ruled:
The lower court did not err in dismissing the case. Relief is denied to a claimant whose right has become stale by reason of negligence or inattention for a long period of time. And the appellants and their counsel have only themselves to blame because they were negligent in pursuing their case. They failed to give the proper attention they ought to give. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process. Appellants cannot impute such negligence only to their lawyers when they themselves were guilty of neglect.9
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is DENIED for lack of Merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
1 Rollo. p. 64; CA Decision, p. 3.
2 Annex A, Rollo, p. 33.
3 Docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 76086, Special 3rd Division.
4 Penned by Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria with Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Arturo D. Brion, concurring.
5 Annex "J"; Rollo, p.71
6 Rollo, pp. 27-28.
7 Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117385, 11 February 1999, 303 SCRA 19.
8 G.R. No. 44980, 06 February 1990, 181 SCRA 811.
9 Rollo, p. 66.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
