THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202489. February 11, 2013.]
PNB REPUBLIC BANK NOW MAYBANK PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. INSULAR INVESTMENTS AND TRUST COMPANY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 11, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 202489 (PNB Republic Bank now Maybank Philippines, Inc. v. Insular Investments and Trust Company). — Sometime in 1995, petitioner PNB Republic Bank (now Maybank Philippines, Inc.) filed a complaint for sum of money against respondent Insular Investments and Trust Company. Petitioner claimed that it bought treasury bills from respondent but the latter failed to deliver said treasury bills despite full payment.
Instead of filing an Answer, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state cause of action. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 28, before which the case was raffled to, denied the motion and ordered respondent to file an Answer. This was challenged by respondent all the way to this Court which eventually ruled in G.R. 138960 (2005) that petitioner's complaint stated a cause of action.
Thereafter, the RTC set the case for pre-trial on August 28, 2008. Petitioner's counsel filed a motion to reset on August 21, 2008 due to conflict of schedule and prayed instead for a September 18, 2008 hearing date. Meanwhile, respondent filed its Pre-Trial Brief on August 22, 2008.
Despite receipt of the motion to reset, the RTC proceeded with the pre-trial absent petitioner and its counsel. Petitioner also failed to pay postponement fees and as respondent pointed out, no pre-trial brief was filed. This prompted the RTC to issue an Order dated August 28, 2008 dismissing the complaint and allowing respondent to present evidence ex-parte on its counterclaim.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), in a Decision dated March 23, 2012 1 it upheld the RTC's Order of Dismissal and consequently denied petitioner's appeal. The CA pointed out the mandatory duty of the parties to file their pre-trial briefs in order to expedite the trial. Petitioner should not expect that its motion to reset will be granted as it is not a vested right. The appellate court also pointed out that petitioner did not attach its pre-trial brief when it filed a motion for reconsideration of the challenged Order which dismissed its complaint but only on January 23, 2009 or five months thereafter. 2
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated June 27, 2012. Hence the filing of this petition for certiorari.
The Court notes that petitioner's complaint involves a claim amounting to P50,799,392.36 as of July 20, 1994. Jurisprudence reminds us that technicalities are not ends in themselves but exist to protect and promote substantive rights of litigants. 3 Litigation is not merely a game of technicalities and courts are given the prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to put an end to litigation speedily and the parties' right to an opportunity to be heard.
In Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, 4 the Court restated the reasons that may provide justification for a court to suspend a strict adherence to procedural rules, such as: (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property; (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (c) the merits of the case; (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and (f) the fact that the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. 5
On two occasions, this case has reached the highest court in the land without even dwelling on the veracity of the claim but merely on procedural grounds. More than 15 years have passed and yet trial has not even commenced. Petitioner's right to due process will be violated if this Court will not allow it the opportunity to present its claim against respondent. This is one situation wherein a flexible application of the Rules of Court will better serve the administration of justice.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court orders REINSTATEMENT of the case before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 28 and that trial proceed with dispatch.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Penned by Justice Japar B. Dimaampao with the concurrence of Justices Michael P. Elbinias and Socorro B. Inting, rollo, pp. 39-45.
2.Id. at 43.
3.Sy v. Court of Appeals, 386 Phil. 760, 767 (2000).
4.452 Phil. 665, 674 (2003); Macasasa v. Sicad, 524 Phil. 673, 690 (2006), citing Barnes v. Judge Padilla, 482 Phil. 903, 915 (2004).
5.Barranco v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, 524 Phil. 533, 543 (2006).