Imperial v. Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Julian Relevante filed a complaint for forcible entry against petitioner Antonio Imperial, alleging forcible possession of his house. Respondent Juan Ocfemia filed a complaint in intervention, claiming both Relevante and Imperial forcibly occupied a portion of his land. Procedural History: The Naga City court ruled in favor of Relevante on possession of the house and ordered Imperial to restore possession and pay rentals. It also ruled in favor of intervenor Ocfemia regarding the land and house, ordering Imperial to restore possession to Ocfemia and pay attorney's fees. The Petition: Petitioner Imperial appealed the city court's judgment to the Court of First Instance (CFI). After several postponements, the pre-trial was set for April 7, 1972. Plaintiff Relevante and his counsel failed to appear. Petitioner moved to dismiss for non-suit. The CFI declared Relevante non-suited and the case dismissed, but controversially held that this dismissal revived the vacated city court judgment and ordered its execution pending appeal. Petitioner's motion for clarification was denied. Hence, this petition for review by certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the dismissal of a plaintiff's case for non-suit and failure to prosecute on appeal to the Court of First Instance operates to revive the vacated judgment of the inferior court. Whether the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the revival and execution of the vacated city court judgment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the respondent court's questioned orders. It held that the plaintiff's non-suit and dismissal of his case on appeal results in the unqualified dismissal of the case, and such dismissal cannot revive the vacated judgment of the inferior court. The case was remanded for trial de novo on the intervenor's complaint.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the dismissal of a plaintiff's case for non-suit and failure to prosecute on appeal operates to revive the vacated judgment of the inferior court: The Court held that such dismissal does not revive the vacated judgment. When a case is appealed to the Court of First Instance, the judgment of the inferior court is vacated and the case stands for trial de novo. The Rules of Court, specifically Rule 17, Section 3 (Failure to prosecute) and Rule 20, Section 2 (Failure to appear at pre-trial conference), provide for dismissal of the action upon failure to prosecute or appear. However, this dismissal, when it occurs on appeal, results in the unqualified dismissal of the case and does not have the effect of reviving the previously vacated judgment. The Court emphasized that the appeal itself vacates the inferior court's judgment, and it is only when the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed for failure to prosecute that the judgment is deemed revived. In this case, the appeal was successfully prosecuted by the defendant, leading to the plaintiff's non-suit and dismissal, which means the vacated judgment no longer existed in contemplation of law. To hold otherwise would render an appeal nugatory by allowing a plaintiff to have his case dismissed yet still benefit from a revived vacated judgment. On the issue of whether the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the revival and execution of the vacated city court judgment: The Court found that the respondent court's order was manifestly grossly erroneous and violative of the Rules of Court, amounting to grave abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction. The respondent court misread and misapplied the pertinent Rules of Court, particularly Rule 40, Section 9, which clearly states that a perfected appeal vacates the judgment of the inferior court. The respondent court's misconception that Rule 40, Section 9 does not apply to ejectment and forcible entry cases by virtue of Rule 70, Section 8, was also found to be without basis, as Rule 62, Section 1 expressly provides that the Rules apply equally to all special civil actions, including forcible entry and detainer. Therefore, the respondent court's ruling to revive and execute the vacated judgment was a non sequitur and bereft of legal basis, necessitating its setting aside.
Main Doctrine
A plaintiff's non-suit and dismissal of his case on appeal to the Court of First Instance results in the unqualified dismissal of the case, and such dismissal cannot revive the vacated judgment of the inferior court.