FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232538. February 7, 2018.]
CONRADO V. SANGA, MENANDRO O. LLANGCO, ARNEL M. MANGARING, EVANGELINE E. ESPIRITU, ROBERT N. NACAWILI, ZALDY D. ABENGOZA, BENJAMIN V. CALAZANS, JR., GABRIEL V. ORSOLINO, ROY Z. TROGO, LEONOR N. NICOMEDEZ, YOLANDO O. FLORES, RIC L. MANGAMPO, EDEN V. CASTILLA, MILDRED GARCIA, AND OLIVIA O. HOLLANDA, petitioners,vs. BIBIANA VDA. DE GUIA, EDITHA DE GUIA LAMANO, DOMINADOR DE GUIA, ROLANDO DE GUIA & MARIO DE GUIA, JR., BORIS JONAS ALDEGUER, FERNANDO ALDEGUER III, AND MARIA THERESA ALDEGUER, REPRESENTED BY ARACELI ALDEGUER, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 7, 2018which reads as follows: CHTAIc
"G.R. No. 232538 (Conrado V. Sanga, Menandro O. Llangco, Arnel M. Mangaring, Evangeline E. Espiritu, Robert N. Nacawili, Zaldy D. Abengoza, Benjamin V. Calazans, Jr., Gabriel V. Orsolino, Roy Z. Trogo, Leonor N. Nicomedez, Yolando O. Flores, Ric L. Mangampo, Eden V. Castilla, Mildred Garcia, and Olivia O. Hollanda v. Bibiana vda. De Guia, Editha De Guia Lamano, Dominador De Guia, Rolando De Guia & Mario De Guia, Jr., Boris Jonas Aldeguer, Fernando Aldeguer III, and Maria Theresa Aldeguer, represented by Araceli Aldeguer). — After a review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and AFFIRM the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated August 30, 2016 in CA-G.R. CV No. 100892 for failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in reversing and setting aside the Order dated May 27, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of Naic, Cavite, Branch 15 in dismissing the case on the ground of the parties' lack of interest to prosecute the case.
As correctly held by the CA, both parties had valid and justifiable cause for their absence on the scheduled pre-trial on May 27, 2011. In fact, prior to May 27, 2011, both parties had already previously agreed to set the pre-trial on June 10, 2011. Moreover, the delay in the proceedings for 10 years is attributable to both parties, who both filed their respective postponements and cancellations of previous hearings. It must be pointed out that the issue on the RTC's denial of respondent's motion to dismiss was never raised before the CA. Neither did the RTC cite its denial as a reason for the delay in the case. Petitioner failed to question said RTC ruling on the motion to dismiss and is thus estopped from raising it for the first time on a petition for review on certiorari before this Court.
The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Naic, Cavite, Branch 15 for the conduct of the pre-trial, and thereafter to decide the case accordingly.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court