ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 137855.June 9, 1999]

SPS. ALVAREZ vs. DILIDILI

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 9 1999.

G.R. No. 137855 (Spouses Cesar and Maria del Carmen Alvarez vs. Teadora Dilidili.)

On October 24, 1996, private respondent Teodoro Dilidili filed a complaint entitled for "Declaration of Nullity of Sale, Title with Reconveyance, and Damages" against petitioners Maria del Carmen and Cesar Alvarez in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 79 of Morong, Rizal. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 827-14. Upon motion of petitioners, the case was dismissed on the ground that the certification on forum shopping required by Supreme Court Circular No. 04-94 was not executed by private respondent himself.

Private respondent then refiled his complaint which was raffled to Branch 80 of the RTC of Morong, Rizal and docketed there as Civil Case No. 487-T. Petitioners again moved for dismissal of the case on the ground that the dismissal of the previous case (Civil Case No. 827-M) constituted res judicata.

On July 7, 1997, the RTC granted petitioners' motion and dismissed the case and, on August 25, 1997, denied private respondent's motion for reconsideration.

Private respondent filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals and succeeded in securing the nullification of the trial court's orders dismissing his complaint. Hence this petition by the spouses Cesar and Maria del Carmen Alvarez, defendants in the trial court.

Petitioners contend that (1) the filing of Civil Case No. 487-T is barred by the dismissal of Civil Case No. 827-M under the principle of res judicata, and (2) private respondent's remedy was to appeal to this Court by way of a petition for review under Rule 45 on pure question of law.

The contention has no merit.

First. The dismissal of the first complaint was not an adjudication on the merits and did not bar the filing of another complaint for the same cause of action. Petitioners cite Rule 17, �3 of the 1964 Rules which provides:

Failure to prosecute. - If plaintiff fails to appear at the time of the trial, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these rules or any order of the court, the action may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise provided by court.

This provision refers to a pending case and the failure of plaintiff to comply with the Rules of Court or an order of the court, whereas the requirement as to certification on forum shopping refers to the initiation of the case. ¹ See I F.D. REGALADO, REMEDIAL LAW COMPEDIUM (6th ed.) Thus, as in the case of the dismissal of a case for failure of plaintiff to pay docket fees, ² See Tacay v. Regional Trial Court of Tagurn, Davao del Norte, 180 SCRA 433 (1989).dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the requirement for a certificate on forum shopping does not bar the refiling of the complaint within the balance of the reglementary period.

Second. Petitioners contend that private respondent's remedy was to appeal under Rule 45 to this Court because the order of the trial court constituted a final disposition of the case and the only question involved was a question of law. As the Court of Appeals held, however:

For we agree with the [private respondent herein] when [he] invoke[s] the oft-quoted doctrine in Alonso v. Villamor that "a litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one deeply schooled in the subtle art of movement and position entraps and destroys the other. It is rather a contest in which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the courts the facts in issue and then, brushing aside as wholly trivial and indecisive all imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure, asks that justice be done upon the merits. Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not won by a rapiers thrust."

This judicial dogma is nowhere more applicable than in this case, where the [private respondent] is asserting fraud and trickery in the sale of real property of considerable pecuniary and sentimental value. In such a case, the highest interests of justice decrees no less than a full-blown trial to once and for all time lay to rest the contending claims of the rival litigants . ³ Petition, Annex N-1; Rollo, p. 148.

Indeed, as held in Mejares v. Reyes:

. . . Technicalities should be disregarded if only to render to the respective parties that which is their due. Thus, although We have said that certiorari cannot be a substitute for a lapsed appeal, We have, time and again, likewise held that where a rigid application of that rule will result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice, the rule may be relaxed. Hence, considering the broader and primordial interests of justice, particularly when there is grave abuse of discretion, thus impelling occasional departure from the general rule that the extraordinary writ of certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal, respondent appellate court may legally entertain the special civil action for certiorari.(Emphasis added) ⁴ 254 SCRA 425 (1996).

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE