ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 255913. August 4, 2021.]
HP FASHION & APPAREL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, petitioner,vs. APL LOGISTICS PHILIPPINES, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 04 August 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 255913 (HP Fashion & Apparel Manufacturing Corporation v. APL Logistics Philippines, Inc.). — For the Court's resolution are: (1) Most Respectful Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari; 1 and (2) Petition for Review on Certiorari. 2
The Court grants the Motion for Extension of Time to File the Petition, but resolves to deny the instant petition for lack of reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals (CA) in its Decision 3 dated June 30, 2020 and Resolution 4 dated February 19, 2021. The CA granted the petition for certiorari filed by respondent and ordered the remand of the case to Branch 67 Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City.
First, contrary to the argument of petitioner, APL Logistics Philippines, Inc. (respondent) is correct in not filing an appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, but a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to assail the RTC Order dated November 27, 2018. It must be emphasized that the dismissal by the RTC was without prejudice. Under Section 1, 5 Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, an order dismissing an action without prejudice is not appealable; and where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Second, the CA is correct in granting the petition and in finding that the RTC failed to consider the absence of intent on the part of respondent to delay the proceedings. As correctly held by the CA, the RTC arbitrarily dismissed the complaint despite the presence of the following circumstances: (1) the showing of a valid cause and excusable consideration for respondent's failure to attend the previous hearing on October 5, 2018, as provided in its motion for postponement of the pre-trial conference; (2) as reflected in the Minutes of the November 27, 2018 hearing, the counsel for respondent appeared in court although she arrived at around 9:07 a.m. rather than 8:30 a.m.; and (3) respondent has authorized its counsel to appear on its behalf.
The Court finds no sufficient reason to reverse the findings of the CA. Thus, the RTC should have been more circumspect in its disposition to dismiss the complaint especially considering that the complaint deals with the proprietary rights of APL Logistics.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion for Extension of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari.
The Court resolves to DENY the Petition. The Decision dated June 30, 2020 and the Resolution dated February 19, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 160541 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (ROSARIO, J., Additional Member).
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-6.
2.Id. at 10-25.
3.Id. at 26-35; penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser with Associate Justices Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig and Alfredo D. Ampuan, concurring.
4.Id. at 36-38.
5. Section 1. Subject of appeal. — An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable.
No appeal may be taken from:
xxx xxx xxx.
(h) An order dismissing an action without prejudice.
In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65.