THIRD
DIVISION
|
CONCORDIA MEDEL GOMEZ,
Petitioner, - versus
- CORAZON MEDEL ALCANTARA, Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 179556 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and
PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: February 13, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This
is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside (1) the Decision[1]
dated 31 May 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 96790, which
dismissed, on the ground of res judicata, Civil Case No. 04-111160
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 27; and (2) the
Resolution[2]
dated 28 August 2007 of the appellate court denying the Motion for
Reconsideration of herein petitioner Concordia Medel Gomez.
This case involves a dispute
over the ownership of a parcel of land with an area of 373 square meters,
denominated as Lot No. 2259-A, located in Lamayan, Sta. Ana,
On
Petitioner is a daughter of the
spouses Ponciano and Isabel Medel. Aside
from petitioner, the spouses Ponciano and Isabel Medel had three other
children, namely, Francisco, Teodora, and Margarita. Respondent is Margarita’s eldest daughter.
Sometime
in 1950, petitioner’s father Ponciano demolished and renovated the dilapidated
house standing on Lot No. 2259-B.
Ponciano then told petitioner that he was giving her not just Lot No.
2259-B and the house which stood thereon, but also the adjacent Lot No. 2259-A with
an area of 373 square meters as his wedding gift, and that she was already the
owner of the said properties.
Consequently, petitioner transferred to her home at Lot No. 2259-B with
an area of 800 square meters[4] in
1951 and raised her family there.
Apparently
already intending to distribute his assets to his children while he was still
alive, Ponciano, with his wife Isabel’s consent, executed a Deed of Absolute
Sale dated 2 August 1962, involving several parcels of land in San Andres,
Manila, in favor of his four children.
Francisco acquired a parcel of land with an area of 1,000 square meters,
while Teodora and Margarita each received a parcel of land measuring 1,027
square meters. Petitioner received less
in the distribution of the properties by her father, as it was her father’s
intention that
In
1967, Ponciano constructed a new house on Lot No. 2259-A. It was agreed that the new house and Lot No.
2259-A on which it stood would be initially registered in the name of
petitioner’s sister, Teodora, considering that she was the second eldest child,
and still single and living with her parents.
Ponciano, thus, authorized the transfer of the title to Lot No. 2259-A
from his name to Teodora’s. It was fully
understood, however, that Teodora would hold the title to Lot No. 2259-A only
in trust for petitioner. Petitioner’s
parents, Ponciano and Isabel, and sister, Teodora, eventually transferred to the
new house on
Petitioner’s
mother, Isabel, died in 1969. Upon the
death of his wife, Ponciano became sickly and weak, such that he was no longer
able to supervise his properties. In due
time, Ponciano made Teodora the administrator of all his properties, entrusting
her with the pertinent documents relating to said properties, among other
valuables.
Ponciano
passed away in 1972. After his death,
Teodora lived alone at the house on Lot No. 2259-A. Not too long thereafter, respondent and her
children moved in to live with Teodora.
In
1993, petitioner discovered that the title to Lot No. 2259-A had been
transferred to respondent by virtue of a Deed of Donation[5]
allegedly executed by Teodora in favor of respondent on
Upon
learning of the transfer of the title to Lot No. 2259-A to respondent’s name,
petitioner tried to settle the matter amicably with respondent, but to no
avail. Hence, petitioner was compelled
to institute on 15 July 1997, Civil Case No. 97-84159 for specific performance and Damages before
the RTC of Manila, Branch 50, against respondent, praying mainly that she be
declared as the owner of Lot No. 2259-A.
Initial trial was conducted by the
RTC in Civil Case No. 97-84159, but it was suspended due to the retirement of
the presiding judge at said court. Judge
Concepcion Alarcon-Vergara took over the case and set the same for hearing on
Unfortunately,
petitioner’s counsel, as well as respondent and her counsel, failed to appear
at the
Records disclose that the testimony
of the plaintiff was not completed at the time this case was scheduled for
trial during the incumbency of the former Presiding Judge of Branch 50, for the
reason, as the Order states, that her lawyer was newly hired. As seen from the records, plaintiff was not
able to complete her testimony due to her own fault. The lawyer hired by her as replacement of her
former counsel entered his appearance on
As soon as the Court received the referral, it lost no time in setting the case and forthwith served the notices to both parties thru their counsel. Both lawyers had to be served notices by the Process Server of Branch 49 as Branch 50 has not up to this issuance, been provided with a Process Server.
At the scheduled trial today, plaintiff was not again ready. Plaintiff, therefore, cannot properly be said as helping the speedy disposition of her case, much less could she complain about the delay for which she was contributory.
Wherefore, for failure of plaintiff to continue with her evidence in chief today, the Court is constrained to order her testimony thus far adduced stricken off the record and this case dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the same.
Let a copy of this Order be furnished the Office of the Honorable Court Administrator.[7]
Petitioner’s
counsel, Atty. Jaime B. Lumasag, Jr. filed a Motion for Reconsideration[8] of
the
Atty.
Lumasag set his Motion for Reconsideration for hearing on
According to the RTC Order dated
Today is June 30, 2000 and it is already past 8:30 a.m. Atty. Jaime Lumasag, in plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, specially the greeting portion of said motion, manifested that he will present his oral arguments today. This was his chosen date. His failure to appear on the exact time that he prayed in his motion for him to present his oral arguments, and considering that there was already an order dismissing this case for failure to prosecute, the Court is constrained to order, as it is hereby orders, the denial of said Motion for Reconsideration and this order is final.[10]
On
The records show that plaintiff’s
counsel received a copy of the Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration
dated
Petitioner
no longer appealed the dismissal of Civil Case No. 97-84159 to the Court of
Appeals.
Less
than four years later, on 13 October 2004, petitioner filed another Complaint[12]
for recovery of share of inheritance with damages against respondent, docketed
as Civil Case No. 04-111160, which
was raffled to the RTC of Manila, Branch 27.
In
answer, respondent moved for the dismissal of petitioner’s Complaint in Civil
Case No. 04-111160. She set up, among
others, the affirmative defense that the cause of action in Civil Case No.
04-111160 was barred by the prior judgment in Civil Case No. 97-84159, which
was dismissed by the RTC of Manila, Branch 50, for petitioner’s failure to
prosecute. Respondent likewise pointed out that petitioner was actually seeking
the same relief in Civil Case No. 04-111160 which she had earlier sought in
Civil Case No. 97-84159. Respondent
claimed that way back
On
Considering that the Order dated October 10, 2005 was an inadvertence as it ordered another hearing on the affirmative defense on October 14, 2005 when one had already been made on July 22, 2005 and considering further that the assertions in the motions are evidentiary in nature and, therefore, will require a full-blown hearing before the same could properly be determined by the Court, the motion to dismiss (Affirmative Defenses) is denied.
Set this case for Pre-Trial on
In
another Order dated
Respondent
filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari[20] under Rule 65 with prayer for issuance
of Temporary Restraining Order, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 96790. Respondent assailed in her Petition the
Orders dated
On
There is no question that the parties, subject matter and causes of action in the prior action, Civil Case No. 97-84159 and the present action, Civil Case No. 04-111160 are the same or at least identical. Furthermore, the dismissal of [herein petitioner’s] first complaint in Civil Case No. 97-84159 for failure to prosecute was not appealed, hence, it became final and executory several years before [petitioner] filed her second complaint. The dismissal of the first complaint had, as Rule 17, Section 3 clearly provides, the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, the RTC – Branch 50, not having declared otherwise.[21]
The
Court of Appeals, thus, decreed:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is GRANTED. The 18 October 2005 and 01 August 2006 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 27 in Civil Case No. 04-111160 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, Civil Case No.
04-111160 is hereby DISMISSED on the ground of res judicata.[22]
Petitioner
is presently before this Court raising the following issues:
A.
WHETHER OR NOT THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA APPLIED IN THE PRESENT CASE CONSIDERING THAT THERE WAS NO TRIAL ON THE MERITS IN THE PRIOR ACTION, CIVIL CASE NO. 97-84159, BUT THE SAME WAS DISMISSED DUE TO TECHNICALITY.
B.
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF HER DAY IN COURT WHEN SHE WAS PREVENTED FROM PRESENTING HER CASE DUE TO THE GROSS NEGLIGENCE OF HER FORMER COUNSEL.[23]
The relevant rule in this case is
Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
SEC. 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.
The afore-quoted provision enumerates the instances when a complaint may be dismissed due to the plaintiff's fault: (1) if he fails to appear on the date for the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint; (2) if he fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time; or (3) if he fails to comply with the Rules or any order of the court. The dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute has the effect of adjudication on the merits, and is necessarily understood to be with prejudice to the filing of another action, unless otherwise provided in the order of dismissal. Stated differently, the general rule is that dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute is to be regarded as an adjudication on the merits and with prejudice to the filing of another action, and the only exception is when the order of dismissal expressly contains a qualification that the dismissal is without prejudice.
It is clear from the Order dated 31 May 2000 that Civil Case No. 97-84159 was dismissed by the RTC of Manila, Branch 50, motu proprio, for failure of petitioner and her counsel to attend the scheduled hearing on said date. Since the order of dismissal did not contain any qualification whatsoever, the general rule under Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court shall apply and it shall be deemed to be an adjudication on the merits and with prejudice to the filing of another action.[24]
This Court is not unaware that,
although the dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute is a matter addressed
to the sound discretion of the court, that judgment, however, must not be
abused. The availability of this
recourse must be determined according to the procedural history of each case,
the situation at the time of the dismissal, and the diligence of the plaintiff
to proceed therein. Stress must also be
laid upon the official directive that courts must endeavor to convince parties
in a civil case to consummate a fair settlement and to mitigate damages to be
paid by the losing party who has shown a sincere desire for such give-and-take.[25]
Truly, the Court has held in the past that a court may dismiss a case on
the ground of non prosequitur, but
the real test of the judicious exercise of such power is whether, under the
circumstances, plaintiff is chargeable with want of fitting assiduousness in
not acting on his complaint with reasonable promptitude. Unless a party's conduct is so indifferent,
irresponsible, contumacious or slothful as to provide substantial grounds for
dismissal, i.e., equivalent to
default or non-appearance in the case, the courts should consider lesser
sanctions which would still amount to achieving the desired end. In the absence of a pattern or scheme to
delay the disposition of the case or of a wanton failure to observe the
mandatory requirement of the rules on the part of the plaintiff, as in the case
at bar, courts should decide to dispense with rather than wield their authority
to dismiss.[26]
Nonetheless, the Court can no longer
delve into the legality and validity of the Order dated
Based on
the principle of res judicata, the
petitioner is barred in another action (involving the same subject matter,
parties and issues) from raising a defense and from asking for a relief
inconsistent with an order dismissing an earlier case with prejudice.[28]
The requisites for res
judicata to apply are: (1)
the former judgment must be final; (2) the court which rendered said judgment
or Order must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) said
judgment or order must be on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the
first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter and cause of
action.
All the requisites of res judicata are present in this case.
For
petitioner’s failure to file an appeal from the order of dismissal dated
To allow Civil Case No. 04-111160 is
to effectively reinstate Civil Case No. 97-84159, consequently circumventing
the final order dismissing the latter case with prejudice.
Lastly, petitioner cannot claim that she was deprived of due
process with the dismissal of Civil Case No. 04-111160. The right to
due process safeguards the opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence
one may have in support of his claim or defense. Petitioner had the opportunity to be heard
and submit evidence when she filed her first case, Civil Case
No. 97-84159. Unfortunately, petitioner
and her counsel failed to make use of the said opportunity, therefore losing
the same due to their lack of diligence.
It must be emphasized that the court is also duty-bound to protect the
right of respondent to a just and speedy resolution of the case against
her.
In Ko
v. Philippine National Bank,[30]
this Court upheld the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of
interest to prosecute for failure of therein petitioner and the latter’s counsel
to attend a scheduled trial. The Court
explained therein that:
In every action, the plaintiff is duty-bound to prosecute the same with utmost diligence and with reasonable dispatch to enable him to obtain the relief prayed for and, at the same time, minimize the clogging of the court dockets. The expeditious disposition of cases is as much the duty of the plaintiff as the court. It must be remembered that a defendant in a case likewise has the right to the speedy disposition of the action filed against him considering that any delay in the proceedings entail prolonged anxiety and valuable time wasted.
x x x x
Petitioners had the opportunity to present their case and claim the relief they seek. But their inadvertence and lack of circumspect renders the trial court's order dismissing their case final and executory.
In the fairly recent case of
Pasiona, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[31] this Court struck down
the argument that the aggrieved parties were denied due process of law, because
they had the opportunity to be heard at some point in the proceedings, even if
they had not been able to fully exhaust all the remedies available by reason of
their counsel's negligence or mistake. Thus,
in Dela Cruz v. Andres,[32] the Court held that “where a party was given
the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he cannot be said to
have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity to be heard is the
essence of due process.” In the earlier
case of Producers Bank of the Philippines
v. Court of Appeals,[33]
the decision of the trial court attained finality by reason of counsel's
failure to timely file a notice of appeal, and such negligence did not deprive
petitioner of due process of law. As elucidated by the Court in said case, to
wit:
“The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. x x x. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of due process.”
Verily, so long as a party is given the opportunity to advocate her cause or defend her interest in due course, it cannot be said that there was denial of due process. x x x. (Emphases supplied.)
Also, in Victory Liner, Inc. v. Gammad,[34]
the Court held that:
The question is not whether petitioner succeeded in defending its rights and interests, but simply, whether it had the opportunity to present its side of the controversy. x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
Wherefore, premises
considered, the instant Petition is denied for lack
of merit and the Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were 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] Penned by Associate Justice Arturo Tayag with Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Hakim S. Abdulwahid, concurring. Rollo, pp. 9-17.
[2] Rollo, p. 7.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] CA rollo, p. 2.
[21] Rollo, p. 14.
[22]
[23]
[24] Cruz
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164797,
[25] Belonio
v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 161379,
[26] Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Magwin Marketing Corporation, 450 Phil. 721, 741-742 (2003).
[27] Luzon
Development Bank v. Conquilla, G.R. No. 163338,
[28] Heirs of Juana Gaudiane v. Court of Appeals, 469 Phil. 271, 282-283 (2004).
[29] Petitioner prayed in Civil Case No. 97-84159:
WHEREFORE, after due hearing, it is most respectfully
prayed that –
1. An
order be issued of this Honorable Court declaring/affirming the ownership and
the possession of the subject premises at
2. The
Defendant be required to surrender TCT No. 155290 with the Office of Register of
Deeds for cancellation. Should she fail
and refuse, an order be required against the Register of Deeds to cancel the
same and issue an alias title in the name of Plaintiff, with all fees and
expenses to be paid by Defendant;
3. An
order be issued nullifying TCT No. 155290;
4. That
Defendant be required to pay:
a) P30,000
as attorney’s fees plus cost of suit;
b) P100,000
and another P80,000 as moral damages and exemplary damages. (Rollo,
p. 48.)
On the other hand, in Civil Case No. 04-11160,
petitioner prayed:
WHEREFORE,
it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that after hearing the
evidence, judgment be rendered on the following:
1. Declare
plaintiff as the owner of the property formerly covered by TCT No. 5485 and now
covered by TCT No. 155290 situated at No. 2599 Lamayan St., Sta. Ana, Manila,
as part of her inheritance;
2. Order
the private Defendant to surrender the owners copy of TCT No. 155290 to the
Register of Deeds of Manila for cancellation and issuance of a new title in the
name of the plaintiff;
3. Order
private defendant to pay plaintiff moral damages of P20,000.00;
4. Order
private defendant to pay exemplary damages of P10,000.00. (Rollo, p. 60.)
[30] G.R. Nos. 169131-32,
[31] G.R. No. 165471,
[32] G.R. No. 161864,
[33] 430 Phil. 812, 825-826 (2002).
[34] G.R. No. 159636,