represented by the
Regional
Executive Director,
Department of Present:
Environment and Natural
Resources,
Regional Office IV, QUISUMBING, J.,
Petitioner, Chairperson,
CARPIO,
Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This
is a petition for review on certiorari[1]
of the Decision[2]
dated 30 July 2002 and the Resolution[3]
dated 3 January 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 66714. The 30 July 2002 Decision set aside the 24
July 2001 and 6 September 2001 Orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 80, Morong, Rizal (trial court) which
reinstated the complaint filed by petitioner Republic of the Philippines
(petitioner) and denied respondent Ildefonso Oleta’s
(respondent) motion for reconsideration, respectively. The 3 January 2003 Resolution denied
petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration.
The Facts
On
29 December 1999, petitioner filed a complaint for cancellation of free patent,
original certificate of title, and reversion against respondent and the
Register of Deeds of Rizal. On 17 April 2000, respondent filed his
answer. Thereafter, the trial court issued an Order dated 4 July 2000 directing
petitioner “to take the legal steps so that the case can be expedited.”
On
11 January 2001, the trial court issued an Order[4]
dismissing the complaint without prejudice because of petitioner’s failure to set the case for
pre-trial. Upon petitioner’s motion and over respondent’s opposition, the trial court
reinstated the complaint on 15 March 2001.[5]
Pre-trial
was set for 17 May 2001. However, on 8
May 2001, petitioner moved that the pre-trial be reset to 14 June 2001 at 10:00
a.m. The trial court granted petitioner’s motion and reset the pre-trial to
14 June 2001 at 8:30 a.m. The trial
court warned petitioner that failure to appear at the scheduled pre-trial would
constrain the trial court to act accordingly.
On
the 14 June 2001 pre-trial, petitioner and petitioner’s counsel failed to appear. Records also showed that petitioner failed to
file a pre-trial brief. In an Order[6]
dated the same day, the trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to
prosecute.
Petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner’s counsel explained that he arrived at the pre-trial
conference at
In
its
On
In
its
Petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration which the Court of Appeals denied in its
Hence,
this petition.
The Issue
Petitioner
raises the sole issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside
the
The Ruling of the Court
The
petition is meritorious.
On Failure to File Pre-trial Brief
Section
6, Rule 18[10]
of the Rules of Court (Rules) mandates that parties shall file with the court
and serve on the adverse party their pre-trial briefs at least three days
before the scheduled pre-trial. The
Rules also provide that failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same
effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial.[11] Therefore, plaintiff’s failure to file the pre-trial brief
shall be cause for dismissal of the action.[12]
The
Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the trial court had “no discretion” on
the matter of a party’s failure to file a pre-trial brief. If the trial court has discretion to dismiss
the case because of plaintiff’s failure to appear at pre-trial,[13]
then the trial court also has discretion to dismiss the case because of
plaintiff’s failure to file the pre-trial brief. Moreover, whether an order of dismissal
should be maintained under the circumstances of a particular case or whether it
should be set aside depends on the sound discretion of the trial court.[14]
In
this case, petitioner sufficiently explained that the pre-trial brief was sent
by registered mail to the trial court and respondent on
On the Absence of a Special Power of
Attorney
Petitioner’s counsel admits that he was not
equipped with a special power of attorney when he appeared at the
Section
4, Rule 18 of the Rules provides:
SEC. 4. Appearance of parties. ― It shall be the duty of the parties and their counsels to appear at the pre-trial. The non-appearance of a party may be excused only if a valid cause is shown therefor or if a representative shall appear in his behalf fully authorized in writing to enter into an amicable settlement, to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents.
Under
the old rules, a representative was allowed to establish the authority needed
by showing either a written special power of attorney or competent evidence other than the
self-serving assertions of the representative.[16] However, the new rules require nothing less
than the authority be in writing. As
held in United Coconut Planters Bank v. Magpayo,[17]
“the rules now require the special power of attorney be in writing because the
courts can neither second-guess the specific powers given to the
representative, nor can the courts assume that all the powers specified in
Section 4 of Rule 18 are granted by the party to his representative.”
The
Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court “abused its discretion” when it
reinstated the complaint despite the fact that petitioner’s counsel had no special authority to
represent petitioner at pre-trial.
However, abuse of discretion is not sufficient by itself to justify the
issuance of a writ of certiorari. The
abuse must be grave and patent, and it must be shown that the discretion was
exercised arbitrarily and despotically.[18] In this case, there is no showing that the
trial court gravely abused its discretion in reinstating petitioner’s complaint.
Moreover,
in Calalang v. Court of Appeals,[19]
the Court ruled that “unless a party’s conduct is so negligent,
irresponsible, contumacious, or dilatory as to provide substantial grounds for
dismissal for non-appearance, the courts should consider lesser sanctions which
would still amount into achieving the
desired end.” In this case, there is
also no showing that petitioner willfully and flagrantly disregarded the trial
court’s
authority. There is also no indication
that petitioner had manifested lack of interest to prosecute or acted
deliberately with the intention to delay the proceedings. Therefore, the trial court acted accordingly
when it set aside the order of dismissal and ordered the reinstatement of
petitioner’s
complaint.
We
are not saying that adherence to the Rules could be dispensed with. However,
exigencies and situations might occasionally demand flexibility in their
application.[20] In this instance, substantial justice can be
best served if both parties are given the full opportunity to litigate their
claims in a full-blown trial.
WHEREFORE,
we GRANT the petition. We SET
ASIDE the
SO
ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
[2] Rollo, pp. 26-33. Penned by Associate Justice Buenaventura J. Guerrero, with Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and Perlita J. Tria Tirona, concurring.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Section 6, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 6. Pre-trial brief. ― The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, in such a manner as shall ensure their receipt thereof at least three (3) days before the date of the pre-trial, their respective pre-trial briefs which shall contain, among others:
(a) A statement of their willingness to enter into amicable settlement or alternative modes of dispute resolution indicating the desired terms thereof;
(b) A summary of admitted facts and proposed stipulation of facts;
(c) The issues to be tried and resolved;
(d) The documents or exhibits to be presented stating the purpose thereof;
(e) A manifestation of their having availed or their intention to avail themselves of discovery procedures or referral to commissioners; and
(f) The number and names of the witnesses, and the substance of their respective testimonies.
Failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre- trial.
[11] Rules of Court, Section 6, Rule 18.
[12] Rules of Court, Section 5, Rule 18.
[13] American Insurance Co. v. Republic of the Phils., 128 Phil. 490 (1967).
[14] Pacweld Steel Corp. v. Asia Steel Corp., 203 Phil. 606 (1982).
[15] Citing Lim Pin v. Liao Tan, 200 Phil. 685 (1982).
[16] See Fountainhead International Phils., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86505, 11 February 1991, 194 SCRA 12; Development Bank of the Phils. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 49410, 26 January 1989, 169 SCRA 409; Lim Pin v. Liao Tan, 200 Phil. 685 (1982); Home Insurance Co. v. United State Lines Co., 129 Phil. 106 (1967).
[17] G.R. No. 149908,
[18] Vette Industrial Sales Co., Inc. v. Cheng, G.R. No. 170232, 5 December 2006, 509 SCRA 532 citing Estate of Jimenez v. Philippine Export Processing Zone, 402 Phil. 271 (2001).
[19] G.R. No. 103185,
[20] See Bahia Shipping Services Inc. v. Mosquera, 467 Phil. 766 (2004).