You are on page 1of 2

Civil Procedure Case Digest AY 13-14

CASE 053: Anson Trade Center, Ansons Emporium, Teddy Chen v Pacific Banking 3/17/2009, GR No. 179999 TOPIC: Pre-Trial; Definition (Rule 18) PONENTE: Chico-Nazario FACTS: 1. Anson Trade Center (ATCI) and AEC (Ansons Emporium) are headed by the petitioner (Chen). Respondent is a bank undergoing liquidation by PDIC. 2. ATCI obtained a 4.35mn PHp loan and AEC obtained a 1mn loan from respondent bank. 3. The petitioner Chen executed 2 Continuing Suretyship Agreements to guarantee the 2 loans. (Chen executed the agreements on behalf of ATCI and AEC) 4. Petitioners defaulted on the loan. Respondent made demands but to no avail. 5. The respondent bank filed a case against ATCI and AEC with the RTC. 6. Petitioner filed an MTD. Respondent naturally opposed this in court. 7. Pre-trial was set by the RTC, all were present. The pre-trial mediation did not result in an amicable settlement. 7.1 case weas set for a full-blown trial 8. The RTC again scheduled a 2nd pre-trial to simplify the issues. 8.1 The respondents did not appear. 9. The petitioners moved to dismiss die to non-appearance by the respondent. 10. RTC: case dismissed (in favor of petitioner) 10.1 respondent filed an MR 10.2 RTC denied MR 11. Respondent went to CA to petition (under Rule 65 GADALEJ in the granting of the MTD) 12. CA: reversed the RTC (in favor of the respondent) 13. Hence this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not the non-appearance by the respondent is a cause for dismissal in the case at bar? HELD: No. RATIO: 1. As a general rule, non-appearance by the plaintiff in the pre-trial shall be cause for dismissal of the action. But, in the case at bar, the SC found that there was a valid excuse for the non-appearance. 1.1 Respondent did not intentionally snub the pre-trial conference. 1.2 Since the bank was undergoing liquidation, it legal department now only have 4 in-house counsels to handle thousands of cases due to its closure of more than 400 branches nationwide. 1.3 It is understandable how the notice for the 2nd pre-trial conference scheduled could be lost or overlooked, as the PDIC (you might ask why PDIC? PDIC was in charge of the liquidation) was still coping and adjusting with the changes resulting from its reorganization. 2. Respondent was not remiss in its duties to prosecute its case. Except for the lone instance of the pre-trial conference on 10 October 2005, respondent promptly and religiously attended the hearings set by the RTC. 3. Upholding the dismissal, despite it being without prejudice to its refiling would unduly financially burden the respondent who is already financially challenged. 3.1 The respondent already paid 344k for the first case. (alangan naman pabayarin mo ulit eh nagliliquidate na

Civil Procedure Case Digest AY 13-14


nga) (a clear case where substance > technicality) 4. The rules of procedure may not be misused and abused as instruments for the denial of substantial justice. CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE: As a general rule, non-appearance by the plaintiff in the pre-trial shall be cause for dismissal of the action. But there are exceptions; one of those is this case. DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION: - Fortunately, none. KEYWORDS/NOTES: Pre-trial is a procedural device intended to clarify and limit the basic issues raised by the parties and to take the trial of cases out of the realm of surprise and maneuvering. It is an answer to the clarion call for the speedy disposition of cases.

You might also like