SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242869. January 21, 2019.]
SPOUSES ROMAN G. SY AND HELEN S. TIU-SY, petitioners,vs. SIAN SUAT NGO, ROBERTO CO CHUA, ALICIA TECSON, AND THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF VALENZUELA CITY, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 21 January 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242869 (Spouses Roman G. Sy and Helen S. Tiu-Sy v. Sian Suat Ngo, Roberto Co Chua, Alicia Tecson, and the Registry of Deeds of Valenzuela City)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the May 23, 2018 Decision 2 and the October 24, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 107959 for failure of petitioners Spouses Roman G. Sy and Helen S. Tiu-Sy (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the conclusion of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 75 (RTC) that petitioners were guilty of forum shopping in their complaint, 4 and that the March 18, 2009, 5 August 24, 2010, 6 and December 6, 2010 7 Orders (Orders) of the RTC had long attained finality.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the Orders could no longer be belatedly appealed by petitioners at this stage. 8 The dismissal under the aforementioned Orders was due to the RTC's finding that petitioners were guilty of forum shopping. 9 This was an adjudication on the merits as provided under Section 3, 10 Rule 17 of the Rules of Court (Rules). As pointed out by the CA, petitioners' remedy was to appeal the Orders before they had attained finality. 11 By not appealing, petitioners lost their right to question the same. 12 Appeal is a mere statutory remedy which must be exercised within the conditions set by law. 13 Even assuming that the appeal may be regarded as seasonably filed, the CA was also correct in upholding the findings of the RTC that the dismissal of petitioners' first complaint in Civil Case No. 127-V-03 was with prejudice. 14 It is undisputed that the first complaint was dismissed due to petitioners' non-appearance during the mediation proceedings in the RTC's pre-trial conference. 15 Section 5, 16 Rule 18 of the Rules, expressly provides that such non-appearance is a cause for dismissal of the action and shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court. Considering that the first complaint was dismissed with prejudice, the CA correctly found that res judicata applies in the present case. 17 Therefore, by filing the second complaint in Civil Case No. 190-V-04 against the same parties, for the same cause of action, petitioners undeniably engaged in forum shopping. 18 It is of no moment that the counterclaim was adjudicated later. It is also expressly provided under Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules that the counterclaim may be prosecuted under the same action or in a separate one, notwithstanding the dismissal of the case.
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 9-26.
2.Id. at 34-52. Penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Carmencita Salandanan Manahan, concurring.
3.Id. at 30-32.
4.Id. at 91-96.
5.Id. at 99-103. Signed by Presiding Judge Trinidad L. Dabbay.
6.Id. at 104. Signed by Acting Presiding Judge Jose C. Fortuno.
7.Id. at 105-107.
8. See id. at 41.
9. See id. at 40.
10. Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.
11. See id. at 40-41.
12. See Building Care Corporation v. Macaraeg, 700 Phil. 749, 758 (2012).
13. See Estate of Macadangdang v. Gaviola, 599 Phil. 708, 715-716 (2009).
14. See rollo, pp. 49-50.
15. See id. at 39-40.
16. 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 otherwise ordered by the court[.]
17. See rollo, pp. 49-50.
18. See id. at 50-51.