FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 218772. March 29, 2022.]
RAMONITO ALFREDO C. EUBANAS, petitioner,vs. RUDOLFO * UY CHUANICO AND ADELIA CAMACHO CHUANICO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 29, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 218772 (Ramonito Alfredo C. Eubanas v. Rudolfo Uy Chuanico and Adelia Camacho Chuanico). — Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 dated July 24, 2015 filed by Ramonito Alfredo C. Eubanas (Eubanas), assailing the Decision 2 dated November 18, 2014 and Resolution 3 dated May 26, 2015 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 100170.
Factual Antecedents
On November 17, 2011, Eubanas filed a Complaint 4 for damages against Rudolfo Uy Chuanico and Adelia Camacho Chuanico (spouses Chuanico) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the City of Manila. On May 21, 2012, spouses Chuanico filed their Answer with Compulsory Counterclaims, 5 and on June 15, 2012, Eubanas filed his Reply. 6
On July 12, 2012, the RTC issued its Notice of Pre-Trial Conference, 7 setting the pre-trial on September 7, 2012, and directing the parties to submit their pre-trial briefs at least three days before such date, to wit:
Pursuant to the Order dated July 11, 2012, this case is set for pre-trial conference on September 7, 2012 at 8:30 in the morning.
The parties and their counsel are required to be present at the pre-trial and to file with the Court and serve on the adverse party at least three (3) days before the date of the pre-trial their respective pre-trial briefs x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
Failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial. 8
During the scheduled pre-trial, Eubanas and his counsel failed to appear. Thus, in its Order 9 dated September 7, 2012, the RTC dismissed the case:
When this case was called for pre-trial, Atty. Ferdinand Benitez appeared for the defendants. Plaintiff and counsel failed to appear. For failure of the plaintiff and counsel to appear, Atty. Benitez prayed for the dismissal of the case.
WHEREFORE, this case is hereby ordered Dismissed.
SO ORDERED. 10
On September 26, 2012, Eubanas filed his Motion for Reconsideration, 11 alleging, among others, that his failure to appear during the pre-trial and to submit his pre-trial brief was due to his counsel's illness caused by a brain tumor. 12 The motion for reconsideration was set for hearing on October 5, 2012, but on the said date, Eubanas and his counsel again failed to appear. 13
On November 29, 2012, the RTC issued its Order 14 denying the motion for reconsideration. The RTC explained that pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff's failure to appear during pre-trial and to file a pre-trial brief, are sufficient causes to dismiss a case, thus: CAIHTE
Pursuant to the afore-quoted provisions, non-appearance by the plaintiff in the pre-trial shall be cause for the dismissal of the action. The pre-trial conference was scheduled on September 7, 2012. The court dismissed the case for non-appearance of the plaintiff and his counsel. The only explanation offered to justify their non-appearance was the counsel's illness. However, the medical certificate attached reveals that Atty. Castillo was treated on September 4 to 6, 2012, and not on the scheduled pre-trial. Assuming that the counsel's justification is acceptable, the same should be applied only for his non-appearance. At the very least, the plaintiff should have attended the pre-trial notwithstanding the absence of Atty. Castillo.
Moreover, plaintiff did not file the required pre-trial brief before the scheduled pre-trial. Pursuant to Section 6, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the failure to file pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial.
x x x. Plaintiff and his counsel were given opportunities to justify their failure to appear in the pre-trial. They, however, failed to appear in the scheduled hearing and to avail of said opportunities. While the Motion remains unrefuted as the defendants failed to file any comment, the Court sees no reason to relax the above quoted rules and to reconsider its assailed order.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED. 15
Aggrieved, Eubanas filed an appeal and elevated the case before the CA. However, on November 18, 2014, the CA promulgated its Decision, 16 dismissing Eubanas' appeal, thus:
In fine, the court a quo did not err in dismissing the Complaint due to the plaintiff-appellant's failure to appear during the pre-trial and to file his pre-trial brief. Said dismissal is pursuant to the express and mandatory provisions of the Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED and the Order dated September 7, 2012 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 14, in Civil Case No. 11-126818 is AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
SO ORDERED. 17
Thereafter, on December 10, 2014, Eubanas filed his Motion for Reconsideration, 18 but the same was denied by the CA in its Resolution 19 dated May 26, 2015.
The Instant Petition
Undeterred by the adverse rulings of the CA, Eubanas filed the instant petition, 20 where he argued, among others, that the rules of procedure should be relaxed since he has a meritorious case which was dismissed for causes not attributable to his fault or negligence. 21 Moreover, citing the case of Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Dando22(BPI case), Eubanas averred that his case deserves to be reinstated and heard on the merits because there are special and compelling circumstances which warrant the suspension of strict adherence to the rules of procedure. 23
On August 24, 2017, spouses Chuanico filed their Compliance and Comment, 24 where they contended that there is no justifiable cause for the absence of Eubanas and his counsel during pre-trial, and for the non-submission of his pre-trial brief. 25
Meanwhile, on September 18, 2018, Eubanas filed his Compliance and Reply, 26 where he reiterated that the rules of procedure should be relaxed in his favor. 27
The Court's Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit. The Court finds that the RTC and the CA correctly ruled that Eubanas' failure to appear during pre-trial and his failure to file his pre-trial brief warrant the dismissal of the case.
Sections 4, 5, and 6, Rule 18 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provide:
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.
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.
Section 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;
(d) The documents or exhibits to be presented stating the purpose thereof;
(e) 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. (Emphasis supplied)
Undeniably, the above-quoted provisions are clear that both non-appearance during pre-trial and failure to file a pre-trial brief are valid causes for the dismissal of the case. DETACa
In this regard, while Eubanas' counsel's illness may be a ground to justify his absence during the scheduled pre-trial, the same does not excuse Eubanas for his non-appearance, considering that, as aptly pointed out by the RTC, Rule 18 of the Rules of Civil Procedure expressly requires both the plaintiff and the counsel to appear.
Moreover, it must be noted that Eubanas' reliance on the BPIcase is misplaced. In the BPI case, the Court relaxed the strict enforcement of Rule 18 despite BPI's failure to file a pre-trial brief because, as found by the Court, such failure was the only procedural lapse committed by BPI, which, to the Court's mind, shows that there was no wanton failure, on the part of BPI, to observe the mandatory provisions of the Rules of Court, to wit:
The counsel of BPI invokes "heavy pressures of work" to explain his failure to file the Pre-Trial Brief with the RTC and to serve a copy thereof to Dando at least three days prior to the scheduled Pre-Trial Conference. True, in Olave v. Mistas, we did not find "heavy pressures of work" as sufficient justification for the failure of therein respondents' counsel to timely move for pre-trial. However, unlike the respondents in Olave, the failure of BPI to file its Pre-Trial Brief with the RTC and provide Dando with a copy thereof within the prescribed period under Section 1, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, was the first and, so far, only procedural lapse committed by the bank in Civil Case No. 03-281. BPI did not manifest an evident pattern or scheme to delay the disposition of the case or a wanton failure to observe a mandatory requirement of the Rules. In fact, BPI, for the most part, exhibited diligence and reasonable dispatch in prosecuting its claim against Dando by immediately moving to set Civil Case No. 03-281 for Pre-Trial Conference after its receipt of Dando's Answer to the Complaint; and in instantaneously filing a Motion for Reconsideration of the 10 October 2003 Order of the RTC dismissing Civil Case No. 03-281.
Accordingly, the ends of justice and fairness would be best served if the parties to Civil Case No. 03-281 are given the full opportunity to thresh out the real issues and litigate their claims in a full-blown trial. Besides, Dando would not be prejudiced should the RTC proceed with the hearing of Civil Case No. 03-281, as he is not stripped of any affirmative defenses nor deprived of due process of law. 28 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
In this case, however, not only did Eubanas fail to file his pre-trial brief within the prescribed period, he and his counsel also failed to appear during the scheduled pre-trial. Worse, when Eubanas was given the opportunity to explain his non-appearance and his failure to file his pre-trial brief during the hearing for his motion for reconsideration, he and his counsel again failed to appear. As held in Daaco v. Yu: 29
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. Indeed, 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. Utter disregard of these rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction. 30 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
In view of all the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to relax or suspend the strict adherence to the mandatory provisions of Rule 18 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. As such, the RTC and the CA did not err when they dismissed the case for Eubanas' failure to file his pre-trial brief and his non-appearance during the scheduled pre-trial. aDSIHc
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated July 24, 2015 filed by Ramonito Alfredo C. Eubanas is DENIED. The Decision dated November 18, 2014 and the Resolution dated May 26, 2015 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 100170 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Also spelled as Rodolfo in some parts of the records.
1. Rollo, pp. 10-25.
2. Id. at 27-32. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. with Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda (now a Member of the Court) and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy concurring.
3. Id. at 34-35.
4. Id. at 37-40.
5. Id. at 41-53.
6. Id. at 54-57.
7. Id. at 93.
8. Id.
9. Id. at 79.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 58-62.
12. Id. at 59.
13. Id. at 63.
14. Id. at 63-64.
15. Id. at 64.
16. Id. at 27-32.
17. Id. at 31.
18. Id. at 82-91.
19. Id. at 34-35.
20. Id. at 10-25.
21. Id. at 17.
22. 614 Phil. 553 (2009).
23. Rollo, p. 20.
24. Id. at 108-113.
25. Id. at 108.
26. Id. at 122-129.
27. Id. at 123.
28. Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Dando, supra note 22 at 564-565.
29. 761 Phil. 161 (2015).
30. Id. at 172.