Pascual v. First Consolidated Rural Bank
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a Regional Trial Court (RTC) decision in Butuan City, which ordered the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens that had been recorded on Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-42190. This cancellation was sought by the respondents in the original action. Procedural History: The petitioners, Spouses Sergio C. Pascual and Emma Servillon Pascual, initiated a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA) to nullify the RTC's decision. The CA scheduled a preliminary conference, but the petitioners failed to file their pre-trial brief and did not appear at the conference, instead filing motions for summary judgment and to hold pre-trial in abeyance. The CA dismissed their petition for annulment of judgment due to non-compliance with procedural rules. The petitioners' subsequent motions for reconsideration of this dismissal were also denied, the first for being filed out of time. The Petition: Aggrieved by the CA's resolutions, the petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. They argue that the CA erred in dismissing their petition for annulment of judgment, particularly concerning the timing of summary judgment motions and the mandatory nature of pre-trial. They contend that their motions should have been resolved first and that certain administrative issuances superseded the strict application of pre-trial rules. The Supreme Court, however, affirmed the CA's decision, finding the petition to be without merit.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment due to the petitioners' failure to appear at the preliminary conference and to file a pre-trial brief. Whether the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation of Section 2(g), Rule 18 of the Rules of Court regarding the timing of motions for summary judgment, and whether the inaction on the motion justified the petitioners' non-appearance at the pre-trial or their failure to file a pre-trial brief.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review for lack of merit. The Court affirmed the assailed resolutions of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the petition for annulment of judgment: The Court held that the petitioners' failure to appear at the preliminary conference and to file a pre-trial brief constituted a violation of Sections 4, 5, and 6 of Rule 18 of the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that pre-trial is mandatory in an action for annulment of judgment, as provided by Section 6 of Rule 47. The filing of a motion for summary judgment or a motion to hold pre-trial in abeyance does not excuse a party's non-appearance or failure to file a pre-trial brief, as the court retains discretion on the resolution of such motions and the conduct of pre-trial. The Court reiterated that strict compliance with the Rules is indispensable for the orderly and expeditious dispatch of judicial business, and such failure merits dismissal with prejudice, as supported by Section 1(h) of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. On the timeliness of the Motion for Reconsideration: The Court found that the petitioners' first Motion for Reconsideration was filed out of time. They received the CA's resolution on November 24, 2011, giving them until December 9, 2011, to file a motion for reconsideration. However, they dispatched the motion on December 9, 2011, via private courier (LBC), and the CA actually received it on December 12, 2011. Under Section 1(d) of Rule III of the 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, motions sent through private messengerial services are deemed filed on the date of the CA's actual receipt. Therefore, the motion was filed beyond the reglementary period, rendering the CA's resolution final and executory. On the interpretation of Section 2(g), Rule 18 of the Rules of Court and the justification for non-appearance: The Court clarified that while motions for summary judgment can be filed before pre-trial, as provided by Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 35, their non-resolution prior to pre-trial should not prevent the holding of the pre-trial. The Court noted that the CA might have misconceived Section 2(g) of Rule 18, which states that the court shall consider the propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment at the pre-trial. However, this provision does not preclude the filing of such motions earlier. The Court stressed that the pre-trial judge cannot motu proprio render a summary judgment; a motion is required, and the adverse party must be given an opportunity to counter it. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that even if the CA's interpretation was flawed, the petitioners could not use the inaction on their motion to justify their non-appearance at the pre-trial or their failure to file a pre-trial brief, as their appearance was mandatory.
Main Doctrine
The failure of a party to appear at the pre-trial conference or to file a pre-trial brief, without a valid cause, is a ground for the dismissal of the action with prejudice. Motions filed via private courier are deemed filed on the date of actual receipt by the court, and the timeliness of such filings must be strictly observed.