FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244665. August 7, 2019.]
SPOUSES BIBIANO T. BARREDO, JR. & BETSY LOU C. BARREDO, petitioners, vs.DR. JUANITO DY, JOINED BY HIS WIFE, CLEOFAS E. DY, ST. ARNOLD MEDICAL MISSION, INC., AS OWNER AND OPERATOR OF DIVINE WORD HOSPITAL, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 7, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244665 (Spouses Bibiano T. Barredo, Jr. & Betsy Lou C. Barredo vs. Dr. Juanito Dy, joined by his wife, Cleofas E. Dy, St. Arnold Medical Mission, Inc., as owner and operator of Divine Word Hospital)
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 of the Decision 2 dated August 23, 2017 and the Resolution 3 dated January 7, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 10073.
On January 17, 2009, Brian Barredo (Brian) went to Divine Word Hospital, a hospital owned and operated by St. Arnold Medical Mission, Inc. (St. Arnold), as he was experiencing pain on the upper left quadrant of his abdomen. He was diagnosed by Dr. Juanito Dy (Dr. Dy) to be suffering from gall stone ailment. He immediately underwent an operation performed by Dr. Dy to remove his gall stone. Days later, his condition became worse, thus, a re-operation had to be made in order to remedy a bleeding. Three days since the re-operation, Spouses Bibiano T. Barredo and Betsy Lou C. Barredo (Sps. Barredo) were informed that their son was suffering from an unnecessary rise of creatinine. On January 26, 2009, Brian died in the hospital and the cause of his death, as per his Death Certificate, were as follows: (a) cardio-respiratory arrest; (b) acute renal failure with hemodialysis; (c) generalized bilo-homoperitoneum secondary to duct of Luschka with bleeding emental fibrosis (post appendectomy area); and (d) hydrops of gall bladder secondary to cystic duet stone; chronic acute calculous cholecystitis. 4
As a result of Brian's untimely demise, Sps. Barredo filed a Complaint for Damages docketed as Civil Case No. 2014-08-46 against Dr. Dy, joined by his wife Cleofas E. Dy, and St. Arnold because of their alleged negligence. 5
During the pre-trial conference on October 28, 2015, only Dr. Dy and St. Arnold appeared and filed their respective pre-trial briefs. Sps. Barredo failed to file their pre-trial brief despite having been required in the notice of pre-trial conference. A perusal of the record shows that Sps. Barredo received on September 7, 2015 a copy of the trial court's notice of pre-trial conference dated August 20, 2015. 6
On joint motion of the respective counsels of Dr. Dy and St. Arnold, the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City, Branch 44 (RTC) issued an Order 7 dated October 28, 2015, dismissing with prejudice the case pursuant to Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which require the parties to file with the court and to serve on the adverse party their pre-trial brief, and to appear during the pre-trial conference. 8
In their Motion for Reconsideration, Sps. Barredo alleged that their counsel received on September 27, 2015 a copy of the notice of pre-trial conference to be held on October 28, 2015. Prior thereto, a motion for preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses of Dr. Dy and St. Arnold was scheduled on September 16, 2015 but this was reset to December 2, 2015. Because of this pending incident, the counsel of Sps. Barredo thought that the October 28, 2015 pre-trial conference will not push through. It was only on December 2, 2015 that they discovered that the October 28, 2015 pushed through. Sps. Barredo's counsel apologized for his misunderstanding of the court's Orders for the conduct of the pre-trial conference and hearing on the affirmative defenses. 9
In resolving the Motion for Reconsideration, the RTC issued a Resolution 10 modifying its earlier ruling. 11 The RTC noted that the motion for reconsideration is bereft of any explanation why Sps. Barredo failed to appear during the pre-trial conference.
Nonetheless, the RTC found respondents Dr. Dy and St. Arnold not totally faultless. While Section 6 of Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and the trial court's notice of pre-trial conference require the parties to ensure that a copy of their pre-trial briefs shall be received by the court and the adverse party at least three (3) days before the scheduled pre-trial conference, these were not strictly observed by Dr. Dy and St. Arnold. While the pre-trial conference was set on October 28, 2015, the pre-trial briefs of Dr. Dy and St. Arnold were only received by the trial court on October 26 and 27, 2015, respectively. Sps. Barredo received a copy of Dy's pre-trial brief on October 26, 2015 only, while that of St. Arnold Medical Mission, Inc. was received by Sps. Barredo a day after the scheduled conference. Dr. Dy and St. Arnold violated the three (3)-day rule for filing and service of the pre-trial brief. Hence, the RTC tempered its earlier ruling by dismissing the case without prejudice, without any sanction for their failure to comply with the three (3)-day notice rule. 12
Thereafter, Sps. Barredo filed a Petition for Certiorari assailing the Resolution of the RTC dismissing the case without prejudice.
In a Decision 13 dated August 23, 2017, the CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit. In holding that RTC Presiding Judge Eligio P. Petilla did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing without prejudice the complaint, the CA emphasized the legal justifications of the trial court under Sections 5 and 6, Rule 18 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. 14 The CA highlighted that the trial court practically extended liberality to Sps. Barredo when it modified its order of dismissal to one without prejudice, which would mean that they are not precluded from refiling the same action. 15 The CA found no cogent reason to liberally apply the rules on pre-trial considering that Sps. Barredo and their counsel had not offered sufficient justification for their failure to file the required pre-trial brief and to appear during the pre-trial conference. The CA concluded that the negligence of Sps. Barredo's counsel binds his clients. 16
The CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration of Sps. Barredo in a Resolution 17 dated January 7, 2019.
In the instant petition, Sps. Barredo pleaded for the liberal application of the technical rules of procedure on pre-trial as it involves the loss of a person's life and the continuous grief of parents whose only hope for attaining justice therefrom is by knocking on the walls of impartial justice. Sps. Barredo maintained that, while admittedly, there has been a misunderstanding in the schedules for hearing, the same should not be made basis for the dismissal of the same, with or without prejudice. 18
After a judicious study of the case, We resolve to reinstate the Complaint of Sps. Barredo and to remand the case to the trial court to give it the opportunity to pass upon the issues raised in this case. We find that the circumstances surrounding the case warrant the liberality of the courts.
As aptly observed by the trial court, Dr. Dy and St. Arnold are not totally faultless. While Section 6 of Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and the trial court's notice of Pre-Trial Conference require the parties to ensure that a copy of their pre-trial briefs shall be received by the court and the adverse party at least three (3) days before the scheduled pre-trial conference, these were not strictly observed by Dr. Dy and St. Arnold. Although the pre-trial conference was set on October 28, 2015, the pre-trial briefs of Dr. Dy and St. Arnold were only received by the trial court on October 26 and 27, 2015, respectively. Sps. Barredo received a copy of Dy's pre-trial brief on October 26, 2015 only, while that of St. Arnold Medical Mission, Inc. was received by Sps. Barredo a day after the scheduled conference, or on October 29, 2015. Dr. Dy and St. Arnold violated the three-day rule for filing and service of the pre-trial brief without any sanction from the trial court.
In addition, the counsel of Sps. Barredo explained the reason behind the inadvertence. Prior to receiving the notice of pre-trial conference, a motion for preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses of Dr. Dy and St. Arnold was scheduled to be heard on September 16, 2015 but this was reset to December 2, 2015. Because of this pending incident, the counsel of Sps. Barredo thought that the October 28, 2015 pre-trial conference will not push through. It was only on December 2, 2015 that they became aware that the October 28, 2015 pushed through. The counsel of Sps. Barredo apologized for his misunderstanding of the court's Orders for the conduct of the pre-trial conference and hearing on the affirmative defenses. 19
To Our mind, Dr. Dy and St. Arnold should not benefit from the inadvertence of the counsel of Sps. Barredo that caused the dismissal without prejudice of their case on a procedural issue when they also failed to comply with a procedural requirement under the Rules of Court in serving to the parties their pre-trial brief. We note that the subject matter of the complaint involves the sudden death of Sps. Barredo's son. Petitioners stand to lose their invaluable right to seek justice for the untimely death of their son on account of a mere technicality. They have manifested their interest to pursue the case and have adequately explained their failure to attend the pre-trial conference. It was not shown that a remand of the case for trial would cause undue prejudice to respondents. In the interest of substantive justice that warrants the liberal application of the Rules of Court, Sps. Barredo should be given an opportunity to present their side during a trial on the merits, to obviate jeopardizing substantive justice.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. The complaint of Spouses Bibiano T. Barredo, Jr. and Betsy Lou C. Barredo in Civil Case No. 2014-08-46 is hereby REINSTATED and the case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City, Branch 44 for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 15-37.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras, with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Gabriel T. Robeniol, concurring; id. at 52-62.
3. Penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras, with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Emily R. Aliño-Geluz, concurring; id. at 43-45.
4.Id. at 17-19.
5.Id. at 21.
6.Id. at 49.
7. Penned by Presiding Judge Eligio P. Petilla; id. at 47.
8. RULES OF COURT, Rule 18, Secs. 5 and 6.
9.Rollo, p. 48.
10.Id. at 48-51.
11.Id. at 50.
12.Id.
13.Supra note 2.
14.Rollo, p. 59.
15.Id. at 60.
16.Id.
17.Supra note 3.
18.Rollo, p. 32.
19.Id. at 48.