Suarez v. Ballar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ma. Rosario Suarez filed a complaint for specific performance with prayer for attachment against Spouses Escolastico and Cordelia Ballar. Respondents, permanent residents of the United States, were served summons extraterritorially. After respondents filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied, they filed an answer averring that petitioner failed to comply with her undertaking, citing dishonored post-dated checks. Trial on the merits commenced but was repeatedly postponed by both parties. Procedural History: The RTC dismissed Civil Case No. 63566 for failure to prosecute on February 15, 1996, after petitioner and her counsel failed to appear for the continuation of the trial. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration, filed on March 11, 1996, was denied on April 11, 1996, on the ground that the 15-day period for appeal could not be extended. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari directly with the Supreme Court, challenging the RTC's orders dismissing the case for failure to prosecute and denying her motion for reconsideration, alleging grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review on certiorari was the proper remedy against the RTC's dismissal order. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The RTC's order dismissing the case for failure to prosecute is a final order, operating as a judgment on the merits. The remedy against such a final order is appeal, not certiorari. Petitioner raised mixed questions of fact and law, necessitating a review of factual circumstances, which should have been brought to the Court of Appeals via ordinary appeal under Rule 41, not directly to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Direct resort to the Supreme Court also violates the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. The filing of the case by the wrong mode of appeal warrants dismissal. On the dismissal for failure to prosecute: The RTC did not err in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute. It is the duty of the plaintiff to prosecute the action within a reasonable length of time and comply with court orders. The records show countless postponements initiated by the petitioner's counsel, culminating in their non-appearance on the scheduled trial date. This culpable want of due diligence justifies the dismissal of the case. On the denial of the motion for reconsideration: The RTC did not err in denying the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner received the order of dismissal on February 20, 1996, giving her until March 6, 1996, to file a motion for reconsideration. The filing of a motion for extension of time did not toll or extend the mandatory 15-day reglementary period. Therefore, the period had already lapsed when petitioner filed her motion for reconsideration on March 11, 1996. The rule that the 15-day period cannot be extended, as established in Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japson, applies to all courts lower than the Supreme Court.
Main Doctrine
A petition for review on certiorari directly filed with the Supreme Court assailing an RTC decision involving mixed questions of fact and law is dismissible for being the wrong mode of appeal and for violating the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Furthermore, the 15-day reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration is mandatory and jurisdictional, and a motion for extension does not toll or extend this period.