Boo <3 <3

CRUZ vs CA
G.R. No. 164797
Feb. 13, 2006

Facts:

A petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of court was filed by the petitioner seeking the reversal and setting aside of
CA’s Decision dated 19 March 2004. The controversy involves four cases. First, the case of Unlawful detainer filed before the
MTC of Gapan, Nueva Ecija. Second, the Quieting of Title filed before the RTC of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, whiles the third case,
involves Injunction. The last case involves the controversy for Annulment of Title with Damages.

The Court has found that herein case (2583) involve the same parties, subject matter and issue as that in Civil Case No. 1600
which has become final and executory and Civil Case No. 2573-02 which was already dismissed by this Court on the ground of
res judicata. In all three cases, Mariano Bunag was included as party-plaintiff and Ernestina Concepcion as party-defendant. The
subject matter involves a parcel of land located in San Nicolas, Gapan City with an area of 1,160 square meters, more or less, and
the issue is who between the two parties has the lawful title over the same. Clearly, not only res judicata but also accion pendente
lite is present in herein case which the plaintiffs and their counsel should have revealed in the Certificate/Verification of their
complaint. Private respondents interposed their Motion for Reconsideration, the court a quo reversed itself and reinstated the
present cased.

Issues:

Whether failure of the plaintiffs as well as counsel to appear on several settings despite due notices, precisely for the reception of
plaintiffs' evidence, upon motion of the defendant through Atty. Mark Arcilla, this case is dismissed for failure to prosecute. YES

Ruling:

Sec. 3, Rule 17 enumerates the instances where the complaint may be dismissed due to plaintiff’s fault: (1) if he fails to appear
on the date for the presentation of his evidence in chief; (2) if he fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time;
or (3) if he fails to comply with the rules or any order of the court. Once a case is dismissed for failure to prosecute, this has the
effect of an adjudication on the merits and is understood to be with prejudice to the filing of another action unless otherwise
provided in the order of dismissal. In other words, unless there be a qualification in the order of dismissal that it is without
prejudice, the dismissal should be regarded as an adjudication on the merits and is with prejudice.

ROASTERS PHILIPPINES, INC. v VIOLA

Facts:

Respondents Georgia Gaviola and Maria Leisa M. Gaviola (Maria Leisa), together with their children Karla Helene, Kashmeer
Georgia and Klaire Marlei, filed a Complaint for Damages against Roasters Philippines before the RTC of Las Piñas City. The
family was hospitalized due to "acute gastroenteritis and possible food poisoning" when they dined at Kenny Rogers Roasters
restaurant Duty-Free Branch in Parañaque. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action.
RTC denied the motion to dismiss, as well as the subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner. Petitioner alleged that
the complaint states no cause of action; that it is not the direct and real owner of the said Kenny Rogers branch; and that there
was no valid demand made by respondents.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari to the CA. The CA dismissed it and declared the affirmed the decision of the RTC
resulting for the petitioner to file a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of failure of respondents to prosecute pending case alleging
that respondents had not filed any pleading to revive or re-active their case since the decision of the CA has become final and
executory. The RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss filed by the petitioner and set the Pre-trial in response to the respondents
Boo <3 <3

answer to the MTD. Petitioner filed the corresponding motion to suspend proceedings before trial court in view of the pendency
of its certiorari petition but was denied by the CA.

During the course of hearing, the respondent failed to attend the hearing resulting for the trial court to issue an Order dismissing
the Complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court. Respondents filed a Motion for
Reconsideration but was denied. However, CA annulled RTC Decision when they found grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the trial court for ordering the dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute despite the existence of a justifiable cause for the non-
appearance of respondents in the scheduled hearing for presentation of evidence-in-chief. The appellate court held that the motion
for postponement filed by respondents counsel and Maria Leisa's unexpected hospital confinement were sufficient justifications
for their non-appearance.

Issue:
a. Whether CA violated the rule on finality of orders and judgments when it granted the petition. – Yes
b. Whether the case should be dismissed for failure of respondents to prosecute – Yes

Ruling:

1.
When respondents chose to file a second motion for reconsideration, instead of filing a notice of appeal, the denial of the MR
already attained finality. The petition for certiorari before the CA was filed out of time because the petition was filed more than
60 days upon receipt of the denial of respondents' first MR on 10 September 2008. The second MR is a prohibited pleading, the
period to appeal began to run from the denial of the first MR. Thus, the Notice of Appeal is also filed out of time. Negligence of
counsel should bind the client, more so in this case where it is the new counsel who filed the second MR submitting the same
arguments as contained in the first MR. Respondent’s petition for certiorari should have been dismissed outright for non-
compliance with the requirements on verification and certification of non-forum shopping.

2.

The Court of Appeals centered its discussion on the RTC Order dismissing the case for failure to prosecute. In ruling that there
are sufficient justifications for respondents' ·non-appearance during the hearing for presentation of evidence-in-chief, the Court of
Appeals reversed the RTC Order. The reversal of the order dismissing the case is tantamount to admission of the Second Motion
for Reconsideration. By giving due course to the Second Motion for Reconsideration, the Notice of Appeal and Petition for
Certiorari are deemed to have been filed on time. But Section 3, Rule 1 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, provides:

VIII. Sec. 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff.- If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the
presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or
to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or
upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same
or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise
declared by the court.

An action may be dismissed for failure to prosecute in any of the following instances: (1) if the plaintiff fails to appear at the time
of trial; or (2) if he fails to prosecute the action for an unreasonable length of time; or (3) if he fails to comply with the Rules of
Court or any order of the court. The fundamental test for non prosequitur is whether, under the circumstances, the plaintiff is
chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude. There must be unwillingness on the part
of the plaintiff to prosecute.

ELOISA MERCHANDISING, INC. v. BDO

Facts:

Respondent BDO extended a credit accommodation to petitioner Eloisa Merchandising, Inc. (EMI)and it was secured by a real
estate mortgage (REM) over its properties. BDO filed an application for extrajudicial foreclosure before the Office of the Ex-
Boo <3 <3

Officio Sheriff, RTC. A notice was issued setting the auction sale of the mortgaged properties. Hence, petitioners filed a
complaint for the annulment of REM. BDO filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action but it was denied.
BDO then filed its answer. The petitioners failed to appear twice during the pre-trial conference despite notice. Hence, the case
was also dismissed twice. The case was once again dismissed due to inaction of petitioners for unreasonable length of time.
Petitioners appealed to the CA but it affirmed the trial court’s dismissal. Hence, the petition for review under Rule 45. Petitioners
contend that the only reason for the trial court’s dismissal of the case was the failure of their counsel to move to set the case for
pre-trial. However, Section 1, Rule 18 of the 1997Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, imposing upon the plaintiff the duty to
promptly move to set the case for pre-trial, had been repealed and amended by A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC which took effect on
August 16, 2004. This amendment to the rule on pre-trial now imposes on the clerk of court the duty to issue a notice of pre-trial
if the plaintiff fails to file a motion to set the case for pre-trial conference

Issue:
Whether the dismissal of the case against the petitioner is proper

Ruling:

Yes. Under Section 1, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, it is the duty of the plaintiff, after the last
pleading has been served and filed, to promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial. On August 16, 2004, A.M. No.
03-1-09-SC (Re: Proposed Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-
Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures) took effect, which provides that within 5 days from date of filing of the reply,
the plaintiff must promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial conference. If the plaintiff fails to file said motion
within the given period, the Branch COC shall issue a notice of pre-trial. When the above guidelines took effect, the case was
already at the pre-trial stage and it was the failure of petitioners to set the case anew for pre-trial conference which prompted the
trial court to dismiss their complaint. While under the present Rules, it is now the duty of the clerk of court to set the case for pre-
trial if the plaintiff fails to do so within the prescribed period, this does not relieve the plaintiff of his own duty to prosecute the
case diligently. This case had been at the pre-trial stage for more than two years and petitioners have not shown special
circumstances or compelling reasons to convince us that the dismissal of their complaint for failure to prosecute was unjustified.

MARTINEZ v BUEN
G.R. No. 187342
April 5, 2017

Facts:

Buen filed in the MeTC an Action for Recovery of Personal Property against Martinez. Buen sought to recover a Toyota
Tamaraw Revo claiming ownership over the same based on a certificate of registration under his name. He narrated that he
organized a corporation named Fairdeal Chemical Industries, Inc. (Fairdeal) with Martinez and a certain Benjamin Gonzales. As
the majority shareholder of Fairdeal, he allowed the company the use of his personal cars, among them, the vehicle. Buen averred
that Martinez now claims that the vehicle was owned by Fairdeal and refuses to return its possession despite Buen's repeated
demands. Martinez alleged that all the vehicles utilized by Fairdeal were purchased using corporate funds; only that Buen
surreptitiously registered some of them under his name. By way of counterclaim, he asked for moral and exemplary damages and
attorney's fees. After Buen posted the required bond, the MeTC in an Order dated April 19, 2005 awarded the possession of the
vehicle to Buen. During the pendency of the civil action, Martinez filed a Complaint for Qualified Theft against Buen in the RTC
of Manila.  A warrant of arrest was issued against Buen who, thereafter, went into hiding. Trial ensued in the action for recovery
of personal property.

Buen's counsel manifested in open court that Buen cannot attend his cross-examination and prayed that the case be archived. The
MeTC ordered Buen's counsel to formalize his motion and for Martinez to file his comment within 10 days from receipt thereof.
Despite notice, Martinez failed to appear during the scheduled hearing and also did not file a comment to the Motion to Archive
as directed by the MeTC. Thus MeTC, in open court, granted the Motion to Archive the case. Claiming that he had no knowledge
of the Order granting temporary archiving of the case, Martinez filed a Comment/Opposition to the Motion to Remand the Case
to the Archives Comment/Opposition) and prayed that the motion filed by Buen's counsel be denied. Martinez filed a Motion to
Quash the Writ of Seizure (Motion to Quash) earlier Order of Dismissal issued by the MeTC. MeTC acted in favor on Martinez'
Boo <3 <3

Motion to Quash and ordered Buen to return the vehicle to Martinez. However, it amended its Order on November 27, 2006,
directing Buen to surrender possession of the vehicle to the sheriff instead.

Buen filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Order directing Buen to return the vehicle to Martinez. Buen also informed
the court that he has since been detained in the Manila City Jail and was now ready for cross-examination but was denied by
MeTC. Hence, Buen filed a petition for Certiorari in the RTC arguing that the Comment/Opposition had already been rendered
moot and academic. In addition, Buen took issue with the MeTC's dismissal of the case pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17 of the
Rules of Court. He contended that unless a party's conduct is so negligent or dilatory, courts should consider ordering lesser
sanctions other than the dismissal of the case. He maintained that the delay brought about by his non-availability to appear during
the trial is "unexpected, unavoidable and justified" and beyond his will.

Issue:
Whether the MeTC gravely abused its discretion when it treated the Comment/Opposition
as a motion for reconsideration of its order granting Buen's Motion to Archive the case.

Ruling:

No. A dismissal based on any of the grounds in Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court has the effect of an adjudication on the
merits. Unless otherwise qualified by the court, a dismissal under said rule is considered with prejudice, which bars the refiling of
the case. When an order completely disposes of the case and leaves nothing to be done by the court, it is a final order properly
subject of an appeal. The May 5, 2006 Order of the MeTC is an order of dismissal pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17. Since it was
silent as to whether the dismissal of the case was with prejudice, the general rule would apply, that is, the same would be
considered to be one with prejudice. Under the circumstances, Buen's remedy would have been to file an ordinary appeal in the
RTC pursuant to Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. Here, Buen filed a petition for  certiorari under Rule 65. Since a special civil
action for certiorari can only be entertained when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law, the RTC could have dismissed Buen's petition outright.

The rule that certiorari will not lie as a substitute for appeal, however, admits of exceptions. The second exception is present in
this case. We find that the MeTC judge capriciously and whimsically exercised his judgment when he: (1) treated Martinez'
(belated) Comment/Opposition as a motion for reconsideration of the April 11, 2006 Order; (2) set aside the April 11, 2006 Order
on the basis of the Comment/Opposition; and (3) dismissed the case without stating the specific ground on which the dismissal
was based.