Chingkoe v republic

Facts
Bureau of Customs through Solicitor General filed a case for collection of money to
Filstar alleging that Filstar defraud BOC regarding with their tax credit. OSG failed to
appear three times for pre trial set by the RTC. Filstar filed a motion in default since
BOC and SOC failed to appear before the court. RTC granted the petition but CA
reversed it.

Issue
We find the trial courts dismissal of the case to be in order. As it were, the trial
court amply gave respondent sufficient notice and opportunity to attend the pretrial conference, but despite this, it neglected its duty to prosecute its case and
attend the scheduled pre-trial hearings. This Court finds that the dismissal of the
case by the trial court was due to the fault and negligence of respondent. There is
clear negligence and laxity on the part of both the BOC and OSG in handling this
case on behalf of the Republic. Despite several re-settings of the hearing, either or
both counsels failed to attend the pre-trial conference, without giving a justifiably
acceptable explanation of their absence. This utter neglect of its duty to attend the
scheduled hearings is what led the trial court to ultimately dismiss the cases. In
finding that the dismissal by the trial court is tainted with grave abuse of discretion,
the CA committed reversible error
The inevitable conclusion in this case is that the trial court was merely following the
letter of Sec. 5, Rule I 8 of the Rules of Court in dismissing the case.

3a apprel v metrobank

Petitioner 3A Apparel Corporation (the corporation) mortgaged its

condominium unit to respondent Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (MBTC)
to secure a loan. For failure to settle its obligation, MBTC extrajudicially
foreclosed the mortgage, drawing the corporation, represented by its president Ray
Shu, to file a complaint for petition for annulment of real estate mortgage,
promissory note, foreclosure of sale, and related document before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig against MBTC and its officers.
After almost two years from the time the case was scheduled for
presentation of the corporations evidence, without it having presented any

evidence, Branch 264 of the Pasig, RTC, upon motion of MBTC, dismissed the
corporations complaint for failure to prosecute
Issue
: Whether the appellate court erred when it upheld the trial courts dismissal of Civil
Case No. 67416 for failure to prosecute under Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of
Court

Held

Section 3 of Rule 17 of the Rules of Court is indeed clear that

a dismissal for failure to prosecute is an adjudication upon the
merits, unless otherwise declared by the court. No such
declaration was made by the trial court, hence, its dismissal of
the corporations petition should be challenged by appeal within
the reglementary period. The invocation of justice and fair play by
the corporation does not impress . In order to perfect an appeal all
that is required is a pro forma notice of appeal. Perhaps due to
failure to file a notice of appeal within the remaining two days of the
appeal period, petitioners counsel instead filed the instant
petition. The rules of procedure, however, do not exist for the
convenience of the litigants. These rules are established to provide
order
to
and
enhance
the
efficiency
of
our
judicial
system. They are not to be trifled with lightly or overlooked by
mere expedience of invoking substantial justice

Benitez v salvador
Facts

Florpina Benavidez approached and asked respondent Nestor Salvador for a loan that she would
use to repurchase her property in Tanay, Rizal which was foreclosed by the Farmers Savings and
Loan Bank, Inc Pursuant to the agreement, Salvador issued a managers check in favor of
Benavidez in the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) and released Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) in cash. For the loan obtained, Benavidez executed a promissory
note, dated March 11, 1998. Benavidez, failed to pay her loan

Benavidez also argued that RTC-Antipolo erred in refusing to re-open the case for pre-trial
conference and disallowing her to present evidence. She added that the absence of her counsel on
the scheduled pre-trial conference caused her substantial prejudice

Issue Whether or not the CA erred in holding that the order allowing respondent to present
evidence ex-parte and submitting the case for decision is valid despite the fact that default
judgment is looked upon with disfavor by this Court.
held
Section 4, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court provides that it is the duty of the parties and
their counsel to appear at the pre-trial conference. The effect of their failure to appear is
provided by Section 5 of the same rule where it states:
Sec. 5. Effect of failure to appear.- The failure of the plaintiff to appear when so
required pursuant to the next preceding section shall be cause for dismissal of the
action. The dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court. A
similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be cause to allow the plaintiff
to present his evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the
basis thereof Sec. 6. Pre-trial brief.-The parties shall file with the court and serve on
the adverse party, in such manner as shall ensure their receipt thereof at least three (3)
days before the date of the pre-trial, their respective pre-trial briefs which shall contain,
among others

Landbank v umandap

Spouses Umandap were owners of an agricultural land in Roxas,

Palawan, with an area of 412.6745 hectares. Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed 406.9003 hectares of the said land
under the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP). The DAR and the Land Bank of the Philippines
(LBP) offered to compensate the spouses Umandap. Spouses
Umandap rejected the offer and the parties failed to agree on the
appropriate valuation, a summary administrative proceeding for
the determination of just compensation was commenced before
the DARs Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) Conchita
Minas. LBP, dissatisfied with the valuation, filed with the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Palawan. RTC issued its Order dismissing the
petition on the ground that LBP failed to submit a proper
certification against forum shopping. On February 21, 2003, LBP
filed a Motion for Reconsideration. RTC dismissed the petition,
ruling that even though the previous dismissal was without

prejudice, LBP nevertheless failed to refile the petition within the

period allowed by the DARAB Rules and thus, the Adjudicators
Decision fixing the just compensation for the subject property
attained finality.
Issue
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING IN ITS AMENDED DECISION THAT
LANDBANK RE-FILED THE ACTION THREE (3) DAYS BEYOND THE REGLEMENTARY
(PRESCRIPTIVE) PERIOD THEREBY EFFECTIVELY RENDERING THE DARAB JUDGMENT
FINAL AND EXECUTORY
Held

the decision of the adjudicator in the case at bar was received by

LBP on December 11, 2002, the appeal to the SAC should be filed
on or before December 26, 2002. The original Petition docketed as
Civil Case No. 3750 was indeed filed on the last day of the period,
December 26, 2002. However, Civil Case No. 3750 was dismissed
without prejudice, and the Motion for Reconsideration on the
Dismissal Order was denied. the case should have been refiled on
the day following the receipt of the denial of the Motion for
Reconsideration on the Dismissal Order, offering only as
explanation that a dismissal without prejudice should be refiled
within the reglementary period.

Lbl industries v city of lapu lapu

Facts:
Petitioner is the registered owner of a 40,634-square meter parcel of land. Lot No. 4839, situated in Mactan,
Lapu-Lapu City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 34555. On January 25, 2006,
respondent City of Lapu-Lapu (respondent) filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court seeking to
expropriate, among others, a 300-square meter portion of Lot No. 4839 for its road opening project from
Saac II to Bag-ong Silingan, Mactan, Lapu-Lapu City. Upon deposit of an amount equivalent to 15% of the
fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration, respondent took possession of and
utilized the property.

Issue: WHETHER THE CA SERIOUSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE CASE BASED ON A TECHNICALITY WHEN
PETITIONER HAS SUBSTANTIALLY RAISED VALID GROUNDS TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE TRIAL
COURT DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE FOR FAILURE OF THE RESPONDENT TO
PROSECUTE THE CASE FOR AN UNREASONABLE LENGTH OF TIME.

Held
Sec. 1, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court imposes upon the plaintiff the duty to set the case for pre-trial after the
16

last pleading is served and filed. With this in mind, We have, in several cases, ruled that the plaintiffs
omission to promptly move that the case be set for pre-trial is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint
due to his fault, particularly for failing to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, pursuant
to Sec. 3, Rule 17.
The parties, as well as the courts below, however, failed to consider that the afore-quoted Sec. 1 of Rule 18
17

had already been superseded by A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, which took effect on August 16, 2004. Thus, the
present rule is that if the plaintiff fails to file a motion to set the case for pre-trial within five (5) days from
the filing of a reply, the duty to set the case for pre-trial falls upon the branch clerk of court. However, this
does not relieve the plaintiff of his own duty to prosecute the case diligently
Tolentino v laurel

Respondents, in their complaint before the Regional Trial

Court, alleged that they are the registered owners of a parcel of
land situated in Barangay Balugo, Tagkawayan, Quezon, with an
area of 1,056,275 square meters, covered by Transfer Certificate
of Title (TCT) No. T-43927. For several years, petitioners have
been in actual possession of the western portion of the said
property with a total area of 620,000 square meters which they
tried to develop into fishponds. In the years 1993 and 1994,
respondents informed petitioners, through Gustavo C. Tolentino,
Sr. (Gustavo) who was then representing them, that the area they
are occupying was inside the respondents' property and,
therefore, they should vacate and leave the same. As the days
went by, the respondent filed a case to recover the property to
the petitioners. On August 27, 1996, petitioners were declared in
default, for failure to appear at the pre-trial conference. However,
the trial court set aside the default order and reset the pre-trial
conference. Despite several resetting of the pre-trial conference
of which petitioners were notified, petitioners failed to
appear. Hence, on March 21, 2000, the trial court issued an Order
allowing respondents to present their evidence ex parte, instead
of declaring petitioners in default
Issue
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS WERE DENIED THEIR DAY IN COURT.

Held.

Sections 4 and 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 4. Appearance of parties. It shall be the duty of the parties and
their counsel to appear at the pre-trial. The non-appearance of a party may be
excused only if a valid cause is shown therefor, or if a representative shall appear
in his behalf fully authorized in writing to enter into an amicable settlement, to
submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations or
admissions of facts and of documents.
Section 5. Effect of failure to appear. The failure of the plaintiff to
appear when so required pursuant to the next preceding section shall be cause for
dismissal of the action. The dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise
ordered by the court. A similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be cause
to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and the court to render
judgment on the basis thereof.

From the foregoing, the failure of a party to appear at the pre-trial has adverse
consequences. If the absent party is the plaintiff, then his case shall be dismissed. If
it is the defendant who fails to appear, then the plaintiff is allowed to present his
evidence ex parte and the court shall render judgment on the basis thereof. Thus,
the plaintiff is given the privilege to present his evidence without objection from
the defendant, the likelihood being that the court will decide in favor of the
plaintiff, the defendant having forfeited the opportunity to rebut or present its own
evidence

Eloisa v banco de oro

Facts

At the scheduled pre-trial conference on June 26, 2003, on motion

of petitioners, they were allowed to present evidence exparte in
view of the absence of BDO which was non-suited. In its motion
for reconsideration, BDOs counsel cited extraordinary and nonmoving traffic as reason for his failure to arrive on time for the
pre-trial conference.

Issue
WON the case id ripe for pre trial

Held

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 PreTrial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures) took effect,
which provides that:Within five (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. We note that 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.