SPOUSES SAMSON MANUEL AND MARY ANN MANUEL, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. PACITA M. RELOSA, MARIO PERFECTO M. RELOSA AND THE HON. PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF BAGUIO CI…

Manuel versus Relosa

The Case

This is the case of Manuel versus Relosa. Spouses Samson Manuel and Mary Ann Manuel, the plaintiffs, appeal from the orders of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 5, which dismissed their complaint for annulment of judgment with prayer for injunctive reliefs. The defendants are Pacita Relosa and her son Mario Perfecto Relosa, the owners of the house and lot in question, together with the presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Baguio City. The case matters because it fixes the consequence of a plaintiff's failure to appear at pre-trial: dismissal of the action, with prejudice unless the court orders otherwise, and no liberality where the absence is the party's own fault.

Procedural History

The Manuels filed before the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City an action for annulment of judgment with prayer for preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order, arising from the ejectment decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 2. The case was referred to the Philippine Mediation Center, where mediation failed, and then to Judicial Dispute Resolution, which likewise failed. It was raffled to Branch 5. The trial court set a preliminary conference, later reset, and then set the pre-trial for September 7, 2011 at nine o'clock in the morning. On that date the Manuels did not appear, and the trial court issued an order dismissing the case and declaring the plaintiffs non-suited. The Manuels moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied in its order dated October 10, 2011. On November 14, 2011, the Manuels filed a notice of appeal. The appeal reached the Supreme Court, which resolved it by denying the appeal and affirming the orders of the trial court.

Facts

Pacita Relosa and her son Mario Perfecto Relosa alleged that they are co-owners of a house and lot at Number 29 Queen of Angels Road, Lourdes Subdivision, Baguio City, covered by a transfer certificate of title. In 2005 they allowed the Manuels, upon the intercession of Pacita's brother Saturnino Moldero, to occupy the lower floor of the premises free of charge. In 2007 they offered to rent out the upper floor, and the parties agreed on a monthly rental of 12,000 pesos, with 24,000 pesos as one month advance rental and deposit. The lease commenced on August 1, 2007, and the Manuels issued post-dated checks of 12,000 pesos each. The first two checks were dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds, and when the Manuels refused demands to pay and to vacate, the Relosas filed a complaint for ejectment.

The Manuels told a different story. They claimed they were not lessees but caretakers, engaged in March 2006 through Pacita's younger brother Johnny Moldero. After the former tenants were ejected with their help, the Relosas offered to sell the property for 2,500,000 pesos, and the Manuels agreed to buy it. They gave earnest money of 150,000 pesos without asking for a receipt, spent 150,000 pesos repairing the dilapidated house, and paid the realty taxes. The sale did not materialize because the Relosas unilaterally increased the price or made unreasonable excuses, and the Manuels were surprised to learn of the unlawful detainer case.

On May 13, 2010, the Municipal Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 2 rendered judgment ordering the Relosas to reimburse the Manuels 150,000 pesos for renovation expenses; ordering the Manuels, after receipt of such reimbursement, to vacate and surrender possession; ordering them to pay rentals in arrears from November 2007 at 12,000 pesos a month with legal interest; and ordering them to pay the costs of suit.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the case for the failure of the plaintiffs to appear at the pre-trial, even though they had appeared at the preliminary conference for the marking of exhibits.
• Whether or not the rules on pre-trial may be liberally construed in favor of the plaintiffs, given their claim that their absence was due to mistake or inadvertence and that they had no intention to delay the proceedings.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Rule 18 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, 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.

This fixes the duty to appear and the only excuses recognized, none of which the Manuels showed.

Section 5 of Rule 18 provides:

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.

This supplies the very consequence imposed on the Manuels: dismissal of their action as plaintiffs.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court acted in accordance with Rule 18. The records showed that the Manuels were notified of the pre-trial at nine o'clock in the morning of September 7, 2011, yet they appeared only at two o'clock in the afternoon. They could not feign ignorance of the schedule because they had been actively participating in the previous proceedings. The Court stressed the adverse consequences that follow from the rule:

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.

On the second issue, the Court refused to apply the rules liberally. Pre-trial cannot be taken for granted; it is not a mere technicality, for it serves the vital objective of simplifying, abbreviating, and expediting the trial, if not dispensing with it altogether. The Manuels' failure to appear was a failure to comply with the Rules and was essentially due to their own fault. Their plea for liberality deserved no sympathy, because deviations from the rules cannot be tolerated; the rules are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of cases, and in an age when courts are bedeviled by clogged dockets they must be followed with greater fidelity, not left to the whims and caprices of litigants.

Doctrine

Pre-trial is mandatory, and the parties and their counsel have the duty to appear. The non-appearance of a party may be excused only if a valid cause is shown, or if a representative appears 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. The failure of the plaintiff to appear is cause for dismissal of the action, and the dismissal is with prejudice unless the court orders otherwise. The failure of the defendant to appear allows the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte, and the court may render judgment on that basis. The rules on pre-trial are not mere technicalities, and liberality will not excuse an absence attributable to the party's own fault.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the orders of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 5, dated September 7, 2011 and October 10, 2011, dismissing the Manuels' complaint.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the failure of the plaintiff to appear at pre-trial is cause for dismissal of the action, with prejudice unless otherwise ordered by the court. Examiners use this case to test the mandatory character of pre-trial under Rule 18 and the limits of liberal construction of the Rules of Court.