Pagdadamayan ng Magkakapitbahay sa Concepcion, Malabon [PAMACO], Inc. v. Singson

THIRD DIVISION

[UDK-16069. February 19, 2018.]

PAGDADAMAYAN NG MAGKAKAPITBAHAY SA CONCEPCION, MALABON [PAMACO], INCORPORATED AND ITS OFFICERS, LOLITA B. BARRERA, MA. CRISTINA B. VIOLA, ET AL., petitioners,vs. HONORABLE ROGELIO SINGSON, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS [DPWH]; HONORABLE RESITO V. DAVID, PROJECT MANAGER, UPMO-FCMC-KAMANAVA; AND ALL PERSONS ACTING IN THEIR BEHALF, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 19, 2018, which reads as follows:

"UDK-16069 (Pagdadamayan ng Magkakapitbahay sa Concepcion, Malabon [PAMACO], Incorporated and its Officers, Lolita B. Barrera, Ma. Cristina B. Viola, et al. vs. Honorable Rogelio Singson, Secretary, Department of Public Works and Highways [DPWH]; Honorable Resito V. David, Project Manager, UPMO-FCMC-KAMANAVA; and all persons acting in their behalf). — This Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to reverse and set aside the March 31, 2017 Decision 1 and November 17, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP UDK No. 145059. There, the CA ruled that PAMACO availed of the wrong remedy in filing a Special Civil Action of Certiorari under Rule 65, instead of a Notice of Appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, and that the issue presented is already moot and academic, thus dismissing the same.

The instant controversy originated from a Petition for Injunction with Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction with Damages filed by petitioners before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City (RTC), entitled PAMACO, Inc. et al. v. Hon. Rogelio Singson, et al. and docketed as SCA 14-012-MN. Petitioners sought to restrain the eviction and demolition of their houses in Lamcota, Barangay Concepcion, Malabon City where the KAMANAVA Area Flood Control and Drainage System Improvement Project of the DPWH was to be implemented. 2

On July 30, 2014, the RTC issued an Order denying petitioners' application. The RTC ruled that the case falls within the prohibition under Republic Act No. 9875 which prevents courts, with the exception of the Supreme Court, from issuing a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction against the government or any of its subdivisions, officials or any person or entity acting under government discretion in the implementation of national government projects or service contracts.

Unsatisfied, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied in an Order dated October 21, 2014. The proceedings were subsequently suspended and the case was referred for mediation. The parties failed to reach a settlement; thus, the case was referred to Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR). Petitioners and their counsel's absence during the JDR conference despite notice prompted respondents to file a Motion to Dismiss, which was granted through the October 26, 2015 Order of the RTC dismissing the case with prejudice. A motion for reconsideration was filed, but was denied, on the ground that their reason for non-attendance was unacceptable.

Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari, imputing grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC in dismissing with prejudice their petition for injunction solely on the basis of failure to appear in the September 8, 2018 JDR hearing.

The Ruling of the CA

The CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit. In doing so, it ruled that petitioners' resort to the special civil action of certiorari is improper, as they failed to show that there was no plain, speedy and adequate remedy available to them in the ordinary course of law. The proper remedy, therefore, would have been the filing of a Notice of Appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, being the plain, speedy and adequate recourse.

The appellate court also affirmed the RTC in dismissing the case, citing Mondonedo v. Court of Appeals3 where it was held that a dismissal for failure to appear at the pre-trial hearing is deemed an adjudication on the merits, unless otherwise stated in the order. Further, under the Consolidated and Revised Guidelines to Implement the Expanded Coverage of Court-Annexed Mediation and Judicial Dispute Resolution, 4 "a party who fails to appear on the date set for the JDR conference may be imposed the appropriate sanction as provided in Rule 18 of the Rules of Court and relevant issues of the Supreme Court." The sanction under Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, was therefore applied by the letter, which enjoins the dismissal of the case with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court.

Moreover, petitioners cannot assert their innocence on the JDR conference, as their counsel was properly notified of the same. Having been served with the Order setting the case for JDR, it was incumbent upon the counsel to notify his clients. Notice to the counsel, according to the CA, is an effective notice to the petitioners.

The CA furthered that even if it decides the petition on the merits, it would still dismiss the same for petitioners' failure to establish that the assailed orders of the RTC were tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

The CA also considered the petition to be moot and academic since the main petition for injunction already attained its finality in G.R. No. 215700, and became final and executory on August 12, 2015. In that case, the Supreme Court, in its Resolution on the merits, has already denied petitioners' prayer for injunction for violation of the Material Dates Rule.

A Motion for Reconsideration was filed, but it was denied in a Resolution 5 dated November 17, 2017. Petitioners thus filed a petition for review on certiorari before this Court. 6

The Issues

Petitioners submit the following issues for the Court's consideration:

a. Whether or not a petition for certiorari was the correct remedy in the case at hand.

b. Whether or not their non-appearance in the JDR conference is excusable.

The Ruling of the Court

The petition is without merit.

In a long line of cases, the Court has consistently ruled that the extraordinary writ of certiorari is always available where there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, as stated in Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 7 Here, the availability of an appeal precludes access to the remedy under Rule 65. In Heirs of Spouses Teofilo, et al. v. Spouses Mores and Lopez, 8 We ruled that appeal, and not a petition for certiorari, is the proper remedy from an order granting a motion to dismiss. Thus, petitioners should have filed an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, instead of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

The CA is also correct in ruling that petitioners cannot assert their innocence on the JDR and pass the fault to their lawyer for not notifying them on the JDR's schedule. It is a well-entrenched rule that notice to counsel is an effective notice to the client. 9 A counsel is charged with the obligation of notifying his clients of the date, time and place of the JDR conference and of assuring that his clients will appear. The consequences of the counsel's failure to notify shall then bind his clients.

Further, in Chingkoe v. Republic, 10 We ruled that an order of dismissal based on failure to appear at pre-trial is with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered. Meaning, when the case is dismissed on such ground, the law disallows and bars the refiling of the complaint. 11 Here, the case was correctly dismissed by for the parties' non-attendance since a JDR is component of pre-trial. 12 This rule is also recognized under the Consolidated and Revised Guidelines to Implement the Expanded Coverage of Court-Annexed Mediation and Judicial Dispute Resolution13 wherein it is stated that a party who fails to appear on the date set for the JDR conference may be imposed the appropriate sanction as provided under Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court. The latter sanction refers to dismissal, with prejudice. 14

More emphatically, the present case questioning the decision of the CA in not finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC, is already moot and academic. On August 12, 2015, this Court has already denied petitioners' main petition for injunction for violation of the Material Dates Rule. Ruling on the case at hand would then serve no practical purpose, as the denial of the injunction had already attained finality.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The March 31, 2017 Decision and November 17, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Manuel M. Barrios

2.Rollo, pp. 49-58.

3. G.R. No. 113349, January 18, 1996.

4. Administrative Matter No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA.

5.Rollo, pp. 27-30.

6.Id. at 2-12.

7.A.L. Ang Network, Inc. v. Emma Mondejar, G.R. No. 200804, January 22, 2014.

8. G.R. No. 159941, August 17, 2011.

9.Waterfront Cebu City Casino Hotel, Inc. and Protacio v. Ledesma, G.R. No. 197556, March 25, 2015.

10. G.R. No. 183608, July 31, 2013.

11.Strongworld v. Hon. Perello, G.R. No. 148026, July 27, 2006.

12.Kent v. Micarez, et al., G.R. No. 185758, March 9, 2011.

13.Id.

14. Rule 18, 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 other-wise 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.