Daaco v. Yu
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Clodualda D. Daaco filed a complaint against respondent Valeriana Rosaldo Yu and others for Annulment of Title, Recovery of Property under TCT No. T-28120, and Damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, Tacloban City, set the pre-trial conference for October 4, 2007. Procedural History: The RTC dismissed the case against respondent Yu due to petitioner's failure to appear at the pre-trial conference. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing she was not properly notified as she received the notice only 15 hours before the conference and that an unresolved motion was pending. The RTC denied the motion, stating that receiving notice 15 hours prior was sufficient, especially given the proximity of her residence to the court, and that her actions indicated abandonment of her cause. The RTC also clarified that the motion she claimed was unresolved was deemed moot and academic due to her prior filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Petition: Petitioner sought review from the Supreme Court, questioning the validity of the RTC's dismissal order for her failure to appear at the pre-trial conference.
Issue(s)
WHETHER OR NOT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT’S DISMISSAL OF THE CASE FOR PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO APPEAR IN THE PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE IS CONTRARY TO LAW, RULES, AND EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERED THE ABSENCE OF PETITIONER'S COUNSEL WHEN SHE WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY ONE.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Order dated October 4, 2007, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, of Tacloban City, dismissing the case for annulment of title, recovery of property under Transfer Certificate (TCT) No. T-28120 and damages, is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal for failure to appear at pre-trial: The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's reliance on the ruling in Leobrera v. Court of Appeals was misplaced because the factual circumstances were dissimilar. In Leobrera, the notice was deficient in time and place, whereas in this case, the notice of pre-trial was received by the petitioner a day before the conference and sufficiently indicated the time and place. The Court emphasized that Section 4, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court mandates the appearance of parties and their counsel at pre-trial, and Section 5 states that the failure of the plaintiff to appear shall be cause for dismissal of the action, which dismissal shall be with prejudice unless otherwise ordered. The Court found petitioner's argument that she had yet to secure counsel specious, noting she appeared before the Supreme Court unrepresented and had actively filed multiple motions prior to the pre-trial, contradicting her claim of unpreparedness. Furthermore, the justifications of needing to secure counsel and prepare documents were not raised before the trial court, violating the rule against raising new issues on appeal. The Court reiterated that while a 15-hour notice might be considered short, it did not, standing alone, excuse the petitioner's absence, as notice was indeed received before the pre-trial date. On the alleged error regarding the absence of counsel: The Supreme Court clarified that Section 3, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court requires notice of pre-trial to be served on counsel, or on the party who has no counsel. In this case, since the petitioner was not represented by counsel, the notice was required to be served personally on her, which she admitted was done. Therefore, the trial court's mistaken reference to her counsel was immaterial, as the mandate of the law was sufficiently complied with by serving notice on the petitioner herself. The validity of the dismissal order was not affected by this statement, as the core requirement of due notice to the petitioner was met.
Main Doctrine
The failure of a plaintiff to appear at a pre-trial conference, despite proper notice, is a valid ground for the dismissal of the action with prejudice, unless a valid cause for non-appearance is shown or a representative is present. A belated receipt of notice, if still within a reasonable period before the conference, does not automatically excuse non-appearance, especially when the party has had ample time to prepare and has actively participated in prior proceedings.