Dela Cruz v. Victa Realty & Development Corp.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 218627. June 14, 2021.]

CARMELITA JARDIEL DELA CRUZ, REPRESENTED BY ERNESTO DELA CRUZ, petitioner,vs. VICTA REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MRS. VICTORIA D. TAYAO, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 June 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 218627 (Carmelita Jardiel Dela Cruz, represented by Ernesto Dela Cruz v. Victa Realty & Development Corp., represented by its President Mrs. Victoria D. Tayao, and the Register of Deeds for the Province of Nueva Ecija). — Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 are the Decision 2 dated September 15, 2014 and Resolution 3 dated May 26, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CV No. 99207, which denied Carmelita Jardiel Dela Cruz's (Carmelita) appeal and subsequent motion for reconsideration, and affirmed the Order 4 dated November 29, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Gapan City, Branch 36, dismissing Civil Case No. 3559-08 for failure of the parties to file their respective pre-trial briefs.

ANTECEDENTS

Carmelita, married to Mauro Dela Cruz, also known as Mauricio Dela Cruz (Mauro), filed a complaint for annulment of title/documents, partition, recovery of possession with damages against Mauro, Victa Realty & Development Corp. (Victa Realty), and the Register of Deeds for the Province of Nueva Ecija, involving a parcel of land situated in Sinsajan, Penaranda, Nueva Ecija covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. EP-75950, which was allegedly sold by Mauro to Victa Realty without Carmelita's consent. 5 Mauro moved to dismiss the case on the ground of Carmelita's lack of capacity to sue and failure to attach a properly executed verification and certification against forum shopping. 6 The RTC dismissed the complaint insofar as Mauro is concerned. 7 Carmelita moved for reconsideration, but was denied in the RTC's August 15, 2011 Order. 8 Meanwhile, Victa Realty filed its answer with compulsory counterclaims. 9

The case was set for preliminary conference on January 21, 2011; September 20, 2011; and November 29, 2011. The parties were directed to submit their pre-trial briefs at least three (3) days before the scheduled hearing of November 29, 2011. 10 The RTC, not having received the parties' pre-trial briefs, dismissed the case on November 29, 2011. Carmelita moved for reconsideration, but was denied. 11

Carmelita then filed an appeal before the CA, alleging that the case had not yet been set for pre-trial but only for preliminary conference. Without a scheduled pre-trial, the requirement to file a pre-trial brief had yet to arise, and there is no legal basis to dismiss the complaint. 12 In a Decision dated September 15, 2014, the CA denied Carmelita's appeal. 13 The CA ruled that Carmelita's failure to file a pre-trial brief despite clear directive from the court constitutes sufficient ground to dismiss her complaint, and that her case does not fall under exceptionally meritorious cases where the rules may be relaxed in her favor. In a Resolution dated May 26, 2015, the CA denied Carmelita's Motion for Reconsideration. 14

Hence, this petition under Rule 45. Carmelita asserts that a pre-trial under Rule 18 of the Rules of Court (Rules) is different from a preliminary conference under Rules 48 of the Rules. Even assuming that pre-trial and preliminary conference are the same, the trial court should have relaxed the rules in the interest of justice because the case involves Carmelita's property rights. Carmelita alleges that Victa Realty will not be unjustly prejudiced if the case is remanded to the RTC. She likewise raises that there is no evident pattern to delay the disposition of the case on her part; neither did she display wanton failure to observe a mandatory requirement of the Rules. 15 On the other hand, Victa Realty avers that the dismissal Order by the RTC due to failure to prosecute must be considered a judgment on the merits, which can no longer be questioned by the simple expediency of claiming that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming it. 16

RULING

The petition is meritorious.

At the outset, we note that Rule 18 of the Rules pertains to the conduct of pre-trial before the trial courts, while Rule 48 pertains to the procedure of the Court of Appeals. 17 Carmelita's contention that the case was not set for pre-trial, under Rule 18 of the Rules, but was calendared for preliminary conference under Rule 48 of the Rules, is misplaced. Here, notwithstanding the RTC's use of the term "preliminary conference," it was the clear import of the RTC to conduct a pre-trial when it directed the parties to "submit their pre-trial briefs at least three (3) days before the scheduled hearing," 18 in accordance with Section 6 of Rule 18 of the Rules. 19

The conduct of pre-trial in civil actions has been considered mandatory as early as January 1, 1964 upon the effectivity of the Rules of Court. 20 It is a procedural device intended to clarify and limit the basic issues between the parties and to take the trial of cases out of the realm of surprise and maneuvering. 21 Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, mandates:

SEC. 2. Nature and purpose. — The pre-trial is mandatory. The court shall consider:

(a) The possibility of an amicable settlement or of a submission to alternative modes of dispute resolution;

(b) The simplification of the issues;

(c) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings;

(d) The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents to avoid unnecessary proof;

(e) The limitation of the number of witnesses;

(f) The advisability of a preliminary reference of issues to a commissioner;

(g) The propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary judgment, or of dismissing the action should a valid ground therefor be found to exist;

(h) The advisability or necessity of suspending the proceedings; and

(i) Such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the action.

xxx xxx xxx

SEC. 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.

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.

SEC. 6. Pre-trial brief. — The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, in such manner as shall ensure their receipt thereof at least three (3) days before the date of the pre-trial, their respective pre-trial briefs which shall contain, among others:

(a) A statement of their willingness to enter into amicable settlement or alternative modes of dispute resolution, indicating the desired terms thereof;

(b) A summary of admitted facts and proposed stipulation of facts;

(c) The issues to be tried or resolved;

(c) n The documents or exhibits to be presented, stating the purpose thereof;

(d) A manifestation of their having availed or their intention to avail themselves of discovery procedures or referral to commissioners; and

(f) The number and names of the witnesses, and the substance of their respective testimonies.

Failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial. (Emphases and underscoring supplied.)

The rules on pre-trial are not technicalities that the parties may ignore or trifle with, 22 its objective being the simplification, abbreviation and expedition of the trial, if not its dispensation. 23 Rule 18 of the Rules leaves no room for equivocation; appearance at the pre-trial, along with the filing of a corresponding pre-trial brief, is not only mandatory, but also the litigant's duty. 24 While every party to a case must be given the chance to come to court prepared, they must do so within the parameters set by the rules. 25 Section 6 of Rule 18 of the Rules is clear — failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial. And, under Section 5 of the same Rule, 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 of plaintiff's evidence. 26

In this case, both parties failed to file their respective pre-trial briefs despite notice. During the September 20, 2011 preliminary conference, the respective counsels of Carmelita, Victa Realty and Mauro were present. In open court, it was ordered that the pre-trial be reset to November 29, 2011, and that the parties must submit their respective pre-trial briefs at least three (3) days before the scheduled hearing. Since the parties failed to comply, it would be unjust to condemn Carmelita alone. Indeed, whether the order of dismissal should be maintained under the circumstances of a particular case, or whether it should be set aside, depends on the sound discretion of the trial court. 27 Under the circumstances, Carmelita's failure to file her pre-trial brief is not a sufficient ground to dismiss the case with prejudice.

Technical rules of procedure are not designed to frustrate the ends of justice. These are provided to effect the prompt, proper, and orderly disposition of cases, and thus, effectively prevent the clogging of court dockets. 28 A strict and rigid interpretation and application of the Rules should not be made in this case, considering that both parties are at fault. Here, the factual background differs from that found in prevailing jurisprudence where it was declared that failure to file a pre-trial brief warrants the dismissal of plaintiff's action. In Ultra Mar Aqua Resource, Inc. v. Fermida Construction Services, 29 petitioner-plaintiff repeatedly moved for the postponement of the pre-trial and did not file the required pre-trial brief. The Court declared that petitioner-plaintiff's justifications — due to the advancing health of its counsel — for its repeated failure to comply with the RTC's order to appear, and to submit the pre-trial brief do not constitute valid excuse for non-compliance. 30 Likewise, in Benavidez v. Salvador, 31 petitioner-defendant failed to appear on the scheduled pre-trial. As a result, the plaintiff was allowed by the trial court to present evidence ex parte. Petitioner-defendant passed the blame to her counsel and contended that she should not be made to suffer the irresponsibility of her counsel, and that the trial court should have relaxed the application of the Rules, reopened the case, and allowed her to present evidence. Pursuant to Sections 5 and 6, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, we validated the trial court's order to allow the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte after petitioner-defendant failed to appear during pre-trial and to file a pre-trial brief despite notice. 32 Similarly, in Suico Industrial Corp. v. Judge Lagura-Yap, 33 it was only the petitioner-plaintiff who did not file a pre-trial brief within the prescribed period. We held that petitioners' allegations on their desire and efforts to negotiate during the pre-trial, and the argument that the case should have just been suspended instead of dismissed for said reason by the trial court, were only first raised by the petitioners through their new counsel in their reply, and merit no consideration. 34

While Carmelita's non-compliance with the trial court's order to submit a pre-trial brief merit the dismissal of her complaint, we cannot simply overlook that Victa Realty equally disregarded the RTC's directive.

Considering that this case involves the property rights of Carmelita, and there was no display of wanton failure to observe a mandatory requirement of the Rules, or scheme to delay the disposition of the case, we find that a liberal application of the Rules would best serve the ends of justice. In Spouses Barredo v. Dy, 35 only the defendants appeared during the pre-trial conference and filed their pre-trial briefs, while the plaintiffs thought that due to a pending motion for preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses, the pre-trial conference will not push through. The RTC, finding that the defendants were not totally faultless as they violated the three-day rule for filing and service of the pre-trial brief, tempered its ruling by dismissing the case without prejudice. The CA found no reason to liberally apply the rules on pre-trial because the plaintiffs and their counsel did not offer sufficient justification. However, this Court ruled that the defendants should not benefit from the inadvertence of the plaintiffs' counsel. In the interest of justice, the case was remanded to the RTC since trial on the merits of the case would not unduly prejudice the defendants. 36

Similarly, in Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Dando, 37 although the counsels for both parties appeared during the pre-trial conference, the plaintiff filed its pre-trial brief on the day of the conference. We ruled that the ends of justice and fairness would be best served if the parties were given the full opportunity to thresh out the real issues and litigate their claims in a full-blown trial. Besides, the defendant would not be prejudiced should the RTC proceed with the hearing of the case, as he is not stripped of any affirmative defenses nor deprived of due process of law. 38

Lastly, in Sps. Paguirigan v. Pilhino Sales Corp., 39 this Court concluded that the trial court's dismissal of the case based on the failure of petitioner's counsel to appear during the pre-trial was done in erroneous haste. There was nothing in the records to demonstrate that petitioner manifested lack of interest to prosecute. They neither abandoned the suit, nor needlessly delayed the proceedings. If the absence in the pre-trial conference had upset the trial court's schedule, or its intention to promptly prosecute the case, a mere admonition for petitioner's counsel, instead of outright dismissal, would have been sufficient for the parties to be informed of the judge's intolerance of any display of tardiness and laxity in the observance of his orders. Citing Calalang v. CA, 40 we directed the RTC to conduct further proceedings, and enunciated that, 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. 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. Also, there is authority that an order dismissing a plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for failure of his counsel to appear at a pre-trial conference, must be reversed as too severe a sanction to visit on a litigant where the record is devoid of evidence reflecting the litigant's willful or flagrant disregard for the court's authority. 41

FORTHESEREASONS, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 15, 2014 and Resolution dated May 26, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 99207 are SETASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Gapan City, Nueva Ecija, Branch 36, which is DIRECTED to REINSTATE Civil Case No. 3559-08 to its docket and CONDUCTFURTHERPROCEEDINGS WITHDISPATCH.

SOORDERED." (Rosario, J., no part due to prior action in the Court of Appeals; Inting, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated February 8, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 11-29.

2.Id. at 33-42. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy.

3.Id. at 44-45.

4.Id. at 144.

5.Id. at 34-35. The complaint was initially filed on September 24, 2008, amended on December 12, 2008, and further amended on July 24, 2009.

6.Id. at 35. Filed on September 21, 2010.

7.Id.

8.Id. at 36.

9.Id. at 35.

10.Id. at 35-36.

The RTC issued an Order on September 20, 2011, which reads in part, thus:

Today's hearing is for preliminaryconference but before it could be started, Atty. Elmer Lopez [counsel for Victa Realty] manifested that plaintiff Carmelita Jardiel is a resident of California, USA and is gainfully employed and earning a lot from her employment. He is wondering why plaintiff is continuously being represented by the Public Attorney's Office when she could well afford to hire the services of a counsel de parte. Atty. Ireneo Romano [counsel for Carmelita] replied that Ernesto dela Cruz, the son and representative of the plaintiff, came to their office and sought its assistance to litigate the case as indigent since he has no source of income, which explains their appearance. Atty. Elmer Lopez maintains that even though the representative in this case is indigent[,] the fact remains that the plaintiff here is the principal representative who is not qualified to free legal assistance. (Emphasis in the original.)

In order to obviate further discussion, Atty. Elmer Lopez was directed to formalize his objection and furnishing the plaintiff through counsel a copy thereof so that they can reply thereto.

Meantime, reset the preliminary conference of this case on November 29, 2011 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning. Parties are directed to submit their pre-trial brief at least three days before the scheduled hearing.

SO ORDERED. (Id. at 36; emphasis supplied; and citation omitted.)

11.Id. at 37.

12.Id. at 37-38.

13.Id. at 41.

14.Id. at 45.

15.Id. at 20-24.

16.Id. at 201-207.

17. See Republic v. Carmel Dev't., Inc., 427 Phil. 723, 737 (2002).

18.Id. at 36.

19. SEC. 6. Pre-trial brief. — The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, in such manner as shall ensure their receipt thereof at least three (3) days before the date of the pre-trial, their respective pre-trial briefs x x x:

20. See Section 1, Rule 20 of the 1964 Rules of Court.

21.LCK Industries, Inc. v. Planters Development Bank, 563 Phil. 957, 968 (2007).

22.Dr. Vera v. Rigor, 556 Phil. 561, 565 (2007); Tiu v. Middleton, 369 Phil. 829, 837 (1999).

23.Development Bank of the Phils. v. CA, 251 Phil. 390, 392 (1989).

24.Durban Apartments Corp. v. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corp., 654 Phil. 413, 422 (2011).

25.Daaco v. Yu, 761 Phil. 161, 169 (2015).

26.Id. at 168.

27.Republic of the Philippines v. Oleta, 557 Phil. 298, 303 (2007).

28.Suico Industrial Corp. v. Judge Lagura-Yap, 694 Phil. 286, 303 (2012), citing Lapid v. Laurea, 439 Phil. 887 (2002).

29. 808 Phil. 648 (2017).

30. See id. at 658-659.

31. 723 Phil. 332 (2013).

32. See id. at 349-351.

33.Supra note 28.

34.Supra at 302.

35. G.R. No. 244665 (Notice), August 7, 2019.

36. See id.

37. 614 Phil. 553 (2009).

38. See id. at 565.

39. 526 Phil. 859 (2006).

40. 291 Phil. 488 (1993).

41.Id. at 498.

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Irregular alphabetical sequence.