ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 164357.� September 1, 2004]
BARBA vs. FERMIN
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 1 2004.
G.R. No. 164357 (Constantino Barba * [deceased, represented by Lilia Barba], Esperanza Canoy [deceased, represented by Remedios Catapang], Josefa Corsino [deceased, represented by Paterno Corsino, Jr.], Paterno Corsino, Toribia Dimacuha, Leonardo Dolores, Hilda Estrella [deceased, represented by Ruth Ramos], Apolinar Francisco, Teofista Garchitorena [deceased, represented by Jose Ra�ada], Concepcion Llaban, Dolores Ra�ada, Marcelo Ra�ada, Leonicio Reyes, Isidro Rodriguez, Alejandro Santos, Gerardo Santos, Elenita Mendoza, and Regina Maningas v. Nieves Fermin, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact Eng. Jose Calderon.)
Petitioners urge this Court to reverse and set aside the Decision and Resolution both issued by the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. No. 73806, dated 27 February 2004 and 2 June 2004, respectively.
The factual antecedents are simple:
Respondent filed eighteen separate Complaints for Ejectment against petitioners before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Para�aque City. The complaints were docketed as Civil Cases Nos. 2001-96 to 2001-113, inclusive, and were later consolidated and assigned to Branch 78 of the court. Petitioners filed their consolidated Answer, and pre-trial was set on 2 August 2001.
On 25 July 2001, petitioners filed their pre-trial brief. The following day, respondent filed a Motion to Re-set Hearing, citing the illness of her attorney-in-fact which required the latter to undergo medical treatment abroad. On the scheduled date of the pre-trial, respondent did not appear and failed to submit her pre-trial brief.� Petitioners then moved for the dismissal of the complaints.� Without resolving respondent's motion for resetting, the MTC dismissed the complaints in its Order dated 6 September 2001.� It ruled that respondent's failure to file her pre-trial brief conformably with Sections 5 and 6, Rule 18 of the Revised Rules of Court justified the dismissal of the complaints.� Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the MTC denied.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Para�aque, Branch 258, in its Decision dated 12 July 2002, set aside the MTC's order of dismissal. It held that respondent's failure to appear during the pre-trial and to file a preliminary conference brief should not be taken against her, considering that she earlier filed a Motion to Re-Set Hearing, in view of the illness of her attorney-in-fact which required medical treatment abroad. Petitioners moved for reconsideration but their motion was denied by the RTC.
Undaunted, petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review.� Expressing conformity with the conclusion reached by the RTC, the appellate court ruled that while the provisions of Section 8, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure make the provisions of Rule 18 on Pre-trial applicable to preliminary conference proceedings in ejectment cases, the circumstances attendant in the instant case should have prompted the MTC to exercise its sound discretion, allowed the re-setting of the pre-trial hearing and excused the non-filing of the respondent's pre-trial brief at that moment.� The appellate court added that the discretion of the trial court to penalize a party for non-appearance at the pre-trial conference should not be abused.� To be a sufficient ground for dismissal of the complaint, the delay must not only be lengthy but also unnecessary and dilatory, resulting in the trifling of judicial processes.
Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that a preliminary conference brief is not mandatory under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.
The ruling of the appellate court is not flawed by any reversible error.
Nothing in the assailed decision would even remotely suggest that the appellate court made a pronouncement that the filing of a preliminary conference brief is not mandatory in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases. The appellate court merely stated that the trial court's discretion to dismiss a complaint must be exercised with caution and circumspection, with due regard to all attendant circumstances of the case.
A cursory reading of the rules reveals that they do not absolutely proscribe deferment of the preliminary conference set by the court. Section 8, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that no postponement of the preliminary conference shall be granted except for highly meritorious grounds and without prejudice to such sanctions as the court, in the exercise of sound discretion, may impose on the movant. Similarly, Section 4 of Rule 18 provides that the non-appearance of a party during the pre-trial may be excused only if a valid cause is shown therefor. In other words, postponement does not impinge on the mandatory character of the pre-trial conference as long as the postponement is predicated on an extremely good reason.
Parenthetically, the parties are required, under Section 6 of Rule 18, to file a pre-trial brief with the court and serve on the adverse party in such a manner as shall ensure their receipt, at least three days before the date of the pre-trial.� Since the RTC and Court of Appeals had already ruled that postponement of the preliminary conference is justified on the grounds cited by respondent in her motion, the filing of the preliminary conference brief may also be deemed to have been justly deferred because, technically, the parties are only required to ensure receipt thereof by the adverse party three days before the date of the pre-trial.
For reasons above discussed, and for failure of the petitioner to attach an affidavit of service of the petition on the Court of Appeals, the instant Petition is hereby DENIED.
Puno, J., Chairman, on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
* Revised name corrected.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
