Corpuz v. Citibank
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Azucena Corpuz, a Citibank credit cardholder, experienced her VISA and Mastercard being dishonored in Italy. She had recently made full and advance payments via checks, which Citibank claimed had not yet cleared. Upon her return, Azucena demanded a refund for overseas call expenses, and later requested the cancellation of her cards. Citibank continued to send billing statements with interest and penalties. The spouses Azucena and Renato Corpuz filed a complaint for damages against Citibank. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City denied Citibank's motion to dismiss for improper venue. After pleadings were exchanged, the spouses failed to appear at the pre-trial conference. Consequently, the RTC dismissed their complaint with prejudice and directed Citibank to present evidence on its counterclaim. The spouses' motion for reconsideration was denied. They assailed the dismissal of their complaint via a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). Meanwhile, Citibank failed to present evidence on its counterclaim within the prescribed period, leading the RTC to dismiss the counterclaim. The CA, in CA-G.R. SP No. 80095, set aside the RTC's order allowing Citibank to present evidence ex parte on its counterclaim but upheld the dismissal of the spouses' complaint, holding that an appeal, not certiorari, was the proper remedy. The CA later modified its decision, allowing Citibank to prosecute its counterclaim, citing Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court. In CA-G.R. CV No. 86401, the CA affirmed the RTC's dismissal of Citibank's counterclaim. The Supreme Court denied Citibank's petition for review in G.R. No. 177133, upholding the dismissal of its counterclaim. The Petition: The spouses filed a petition for review (G.R. No. 175677) assailing the CA's decision upholding the dismissal of their complaint. Citibank filed a motion for reconsideration (G.R. No. 177133) after its petition for review regarding the dismissal of its counterclaim was denied.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the dismissal of the spouses' complaint due to their failure to appear at the pre-trial conference, and whether the spouses' failure to appear at the pre-trial conference was due to excusable negligence. Whether a petition for certiorari was the proper remedy to assail the trial court's order dismissing the complaint. Whether the dismissal of the spouses' complaint necessarily carried with it the dismissal of Citibank's counterclaim. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of Citibank's counterclaim, considering the conflicting CA rulings. Whether Citibank followed proper procedure in prosecuting its counterclaim, specifically regarding the presentation of evidence and the effect of the pending petition for certiorari.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review in G.R. No. 175677 and the motion for reconsideration in G.R. No. 177133. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the spouses' complaint and the dismissal of Citibank's counterclaim.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the spouses' complaint and excusable negligence: The Court reiterated that Section 5 of Rule 18 of the Rules of Court mandates that the failure of the plaintiff to appear at the pre-trial conference shall be cause for dismissal of the action with prejudice. The trial court correctly deemed the spouses as non-suited. The dismissal was a final order, and the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal. The spouses' excuse for their non-appearance, attributing it to their counsel's negligence and their own busy schedules, was found to be insufficient to constitute excusable negligence. The Court emphasized that such failures reflect carelessness and inattention, not an unavoidable hindrance or accident, citing Quelnan v. VHF Philippines. On the propriety of certiorari: The Court held that the spouses' resort to a petition for certiorari was improper because the trial court's order dismissing their complaint was a final order on the merits. Certiorari is only available when there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and it is used to correct grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. An appeal is the appropriate remedy to question a final order. On the dismissal of the counterclaim: The Court clarified that under Section 3 of Rule 17, the dismissal of a complaint due to the plaintiff's fault is without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute their counterclaim in the same or a separate action. This principle was further elucidated in Pinga v. Heirs of German Santiago, which held that the dismissal of the complaint for lack of prosecution or failure of evidence does not automatically mean there is also an absence of evidence to prove the defendant's counterclaim. The Court found that Citibank failed to present evidence on its counterclaim within the 30-day period granted by the trial court, and its subsequent motions to defer or reconsider were filed belatedly, thus warranting the dismissal of its counterclaim. On the conflicting CA rulings and the dismissal of Citibank's counterclaim: The Court found no conflict between the two decisions of the Court of Appeals. In one case (CA-G.R. SP No. 80095), the CA ruled that Citibank could still prosecute its counterclaim. In the other case (CA-G.R. CV No. 86401), the CA affirmed the dismissal of Citibank's counterclaim, meaning its right to present evidence thereon had lapsed due to its failure to act within the prescribed period. The rulings were complementary, indicating that while the right to a counterclaim existed, the opportunity to present evidence had expired. On the procedural aspects of the counterclaim: The Court noted that Citibank failed to present evidence within the 30-day period from its receipt of the trial court's order. Its motion to defer was filed more than two months after the period expired, and it did not seek reconsideration of the order denying its motion to present evidence until over five months later. The Court also pointed out that the pendency of a petition for certiorari before the CA does not automatically suspend the proceedings in the lower court unless a restraining order or injunction was issued, which was not the case here.
Main Doctrine
The failure of a party to appear at a mandatory pre-trial conference, without a valid and compelling excuse, constitutes a failure to prosecute and warrants the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice. The proper remedy for such dismissal is an ordinary appeal, not a petition for certiorari. Furthermore, the dismissal of a complaint due to the plaintiff's fault does not necessarily carry with it the dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim, which may still be prosecuted separately.