Causing v. Cebu Air, Inc.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 241527. October 8, 2018.]

ATTY. BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING, petitioner,vs. CEBU AIR, INC., ALSO KNOWN AS CEBU PACIFIC AIR OR CEBU PACIFIC, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 8, 2018which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 241527 — Atty. Berteni Cataluña Causing, Petitioner, vs. Cebu Air, Inc., also known as Cebu Pacific Air or Cebu Pacific, Respondent.

Considering the allegations, issues and arguments raised in the Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure of the petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error as to warrant the Court's exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.

Petitioner insists on his interest in prosecuting the case as shown by his filing of pleadings and appearances in court. 1 He claims that "there is nothing that the Courts can demand for [him] to prove his interest in prosecuting this case." 2 Consequently, he prays that the Court reinstate the case and decide the same based on the merits. 3

Section 4, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court requires the parties and their counsel to appear at the pre-trial conference. The effect of their failure to appear, in turn, is expressly stated in Section 5 of the same rule, viz.: CAIHTE

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. (Emphasis supplied)

"Hence, the failure of a party to appear at pre-trial has adverse consequences: if the absent party is the plaintiff then he may be declared non-suited and his case is dismissed; if the absent party is the defendant, then the plaintiff may be allowed to present his evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof." 4

Although it is true that this rule is not absolute, 5 we agree with the CA's ruling that no such exceptional circumstance was present in this case that would have excused petitioner's absence at the pre-trial conference on January 27, 2015. As the CA aptly pointed out, petitioner's reason for his failure to appear at the scheduled pre-trial conference, i.e., his attendance at another hearing in a different court, can hardly be deemed a valid cause. 6 Besides, "[w]hat constitutes a valid cause is subject to the court's sound discretion and the exercise of such discretion shall not be disturbed except in cases of clear and manifest abuse." 7 Unfortunately, petitioner was unable to show that the trial court had indeed gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the case.

Moreover, petitioner's failure to comply with the content requirement under Section 13, Rule 44, in relation to Section 1 (f), Rule 50, of the Rules of Court was sufficient ground for the outright dismissal of his appeal before the CA. 8

ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the April 25, 2018 Decision and the August 13, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 106236.

SO ORDERED." Bersamin, J., on official travel. DETACa

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 11-12.

2.Id. at 12.

3.Id. at 12-13.

4.Ultra Mar Aqua Resource, Inc. v. Fermida Construction Services, G.R. No. 191535, April 17, 2017.

5.Id.

6.Rollo, pp. 27-28.

7.Supra note 4.

8.Rollo, pp. 24-25.