SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238360. June 6, 2018.]
SOCORRO AVELINO AND EMMET MASON, JR., petitioners,vs. E. CORTES DIAGEM REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY LETICIA P. CORTES, IN HER CAPACITY AS CORPORATE SECRETARY AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 June 2018which reads as follows: ETHIDa
"G.R. No. 238360 [Formerly UDK-16155] (Socorro Avelino and Emmet Mason, Jr. v. E. Cortes Diagem Realty and Development Corporation, represented by Leticia P. Cortes, in her capacity as Corporate Secretary and Registry of Deeds of Quezon City)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the October 9, 2017 Decision 1 and February 12, 2018 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 145151 for failure of petitioners Socorro Avelino and Emmet Mason, Jr. (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the dismissal of their complaint for their failure to attend the scheduled pre-trial conference without any justifiable reason.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the facts of the case do not warrant a liberal construction of the rules considering the failure of petitioners to justify their non-appearance at the pre-trial conference scheduled on September 3, 2015 after being reset five (5) times. 3 Case law teaches that concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to at least promptly explain its failure to comply with the rules. 4
Besides, petitioners' motion for reconsideration was further denied by the CA for being filed out of time. Records reveal that a copy of the aforesaid Decision was received by petitioners on October 18, 2017, but the motion was only filed on November 10, 2017, beyond the 15-day reglementary period. 5
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 40-55. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla with Associate Justices Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob concurring.
2.Id. at 29-30.
3. Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court provides:
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.
4. "Thus, the failure of a party to appear at the pre-trial has adverse consequences. If the absent party is the plaintiff, then he may be declared non-suited and his case dismissed. If it is the defendant who fails to appear, then the plaintiff may be allowed to present his evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof.
In certain instances, however, the non-appearance of a party may be excused if a valid cause is shown. What constitutes a valid ground to excuse litigants and their counsels at the pre-trial is subject to the sound discretion of a judge. Unless and until a clear and manifest abuse of discretion is committed by the judge, his appreciation of a party's reasons for his nonappearance will not be disturbed." (See Daaco v. Yu, 761 Phil. 161, 168 [2015])
5.Rollo, p. 48.