American Insurance Co. v. Manila Port Service
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a claim for damages amounting to P4,054.20 arising from the alleged loss and damage to 1,334 cartons of composition cork rods. These goods were discharged under bill of lading No. 3 by the SS "TUNGUS" into the custody of defendants Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company. The shipment, valued at P28,888.80, was imported by and consigned to Sociedade Corticeira Concorco, Lda., insured with plaintiff American Insurance Co., and was delivered by the defendants to the consignee with the aforementioned losses and damages. Despite a claim being made, the defendants refused to pay, leading the subrogee insurer, American Insurance Co., to file suit after paying the consignee. 2. Procedural History: The action commenced on November 15, 1963, in the City Court of Manila, where the plaintiff secured a favorable judgment. The defendants appealed this decision to the Court of First Instance. During the proceedings de novo in the Court of First Instance, pre-trial was scheduled and continued. On January 11, 1967, the case was called for retrial, but neither the defendants nor their counsel appeared. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal was granted, and the case was ordered remanded for execution. A subsequent motion for reconsideration, filed by a lawyer who appeared ten minutes late, was denied, as was a further motion for reconsideration of that denial. 3. The Petition: The defendants are appealing the order of dismissal issued by the Court of First Instance, which dismissed their appeal from the City Court's decision. The core of the defendants' appeal hinges on the dismissal of their case due to their failure to appear at the pre-trial conference. The Supreme Court is asked to review whether the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the appeal under these circumstances, particularly in light of the mandatory nature of pre-trial and the consequences of non-appearance as stipulated in the Revised Rules of Court, specifically Rule 20 and Rule 40.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the defendants' appeal due to their failure to appear at the pre-trial conference. Whether the dismissal of the appeal for failure to prosecute was proper.
Ruling
The appealed order of dismissal is affirmed. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of dismissal for failure to appear at pre-trial: The Court held that the Court of First Instance did not err in denying the motion for reconsideration and dismissing the appeal. The Revised Rules of Court mandate pre-trial, and parties and their counsel are required to appear. Section 2, Rule 20 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that a party who fails to appear at a pre-trial conference may be non-suited or considered as in default. In this case, both defendants and their counsel failed to appear. The appearance of another lawyer ten minutes after the dismissal order was issued, to ask for a postponement, was considered late and insufficient, especially in light of the court's finding that defendants had already sought several postponements. Furthermore, the defendants themselves, or their representative, did not appear, which further supported the finding of failure to prosecute their appeal. On the issue of dismissal for failure to prosecute: Applying Section 9 of Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, the Court affirmed that if an appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute, the judgment of the lower court is deemed revived and shall forthwith be remanded to the municipal or city court for execution. The failure of the defendants to appear at the scheduled pre-trial, despite previous postponements, constituted a failure to prosecute their appeal. Therefore, the dismissal of the appeal was in order, and the case should be remanded to the lower court for execution of its judgment.
Main Doctrine
A party who fails to appear at a pre-trial conference may be non-suited or considered as in default, and an appeal dismissed for failure to prosecute shall be revived and remanded for execution.