MACTAN ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC. AND ANTONIO P. TOMPAR, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. ANTONIETTA PABLO- MEDINA, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 276, MUNTI…
LAMPAS PERALTA, J.:
THE ANTECEDENTS
This case stemmed from a complaint for sum of money with damages[5] filed on March 14, 2011 by private respondent Benfrie S. Germo against petitioner Mactan Rock Industries, Inc. and its Chairman, petitioner Antonio P. Tompar, alleging that (i) private respondent was employed by petitioners as marketing consultant in charge of marketing the company’s products and services and representing the company in the negotiation and perfection of its sale/order contracts;[6] (ii) as compensation, private respondent was to receive a monthly allowance of P5,000.00 per agreed area of business, and commission of a certain percentage based on the contract/sales price;[7] and, (iii) despite private respondent’s successful negotiation for a supply contract with International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (“ICTSI”), petitioners failed to pay the commission they agreed upon. Private respondent prayed that petitioners be ordered to pay private respondent’s unpaid commissions, interest, and moral damages.[8]
On June 27, 2011, petitioners filed their answer,[9] denying the allegations in the complaint and praying for its dismissal on the ground of lack of cause of action.[10]
On September 5, 2011, the trial court issued a pre-trial notice setting the pre-trial conference on October 18, 2011 and directing the parties to file their respective pre-trial briefs.[11] Private respondent filed his pre-trial brief on September 19, 2011 while petitioners filed theirs on October 14, 2011.[12]
From the first setting of the pre-trial conference on October 18, 2011 up to the last setting on August 15, 2013, or in a span of almost two (2) years, ten (10) postponements had been made, six (6) of which were due to the failure of petitioners to appear. Private respondent had filed four (4) motions to declare petitioners as in default. The first motion, done verbally by private respondent, was granted by the trial court[13] but eventually reconsidered[14] upon petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.[15] The second motion was denied.[16] The third motion was granted[17] but later reconsidered.[18] Then came the fourth motion which the trial court granted in the subject Order dated October 1, 2013.
For expediency, only the relevant proceedings pertaining to the fourth motion to declare petitioners as in default, are hereunder mentioned.
In an Order dated April 3, 2013, the trial court reset the pre-trial on May 21, 2013, with the further directive for the parties to file the judicial affidavits of witnesses and their documentary and object evidence not later than five (5) days before the pre-trial, pursuant to the Judicial Affidavit Rule.[19]
On May 14, 2013, petitioners’ counsel, Atty. Juanito C. Neumeran, filed an omnibus motion for leave to withdraw as counsel and for postponement.[20] The trial court granted the motion in an Order dated May 21, 2013,[21] on conditions that the same will be the last resetting, that petitioners’ failure to comply with the Order dated April 3, 2013 or to appear in the next scheduled hearing will be cause for them to be declared as in default, and that no further postponements will be allowed.[22] The case was again reset for pre-trial conference on June 13, 2013.[23]
On June 11, 2013, i.e., two (2) days before the scheduled hearing, Muntuerto Miel Duyongco Law Offices, represented by Atty. Chad Rodolfo Miel, entered its appearance as petitioners’ new counsel and moved that the hearing be suspended to give them sufficient time to study the records of the case and submit the necessary pleadings.[24]
On June 13, 2013, the trial court issued a constancia setting the hearing on August 15, 2013, since the trial court judge was on emergency leave.[25] On even date, private respondent filed its fourth motion to declare defendants (herein petitioners) in default, asserting that petitioners’ failure to appear in court and their failure to submit their judicial affidavits and documentary evidence were in blatant disregard of the ultimatum given by the trial court in its Order dated May 14, 2013.[26]
On August 13, 2013, the trial court issued an Order cancelling the hearing set on August 15, 2013, in view of private respondent’s pending motion to declare petitioners as in default.[27]
On August 15, 2013, an entry of appearance with comment/opposition to the motion to declare petitioners in default[28] was filed by one Atty. Mario Cavada, petitioners’ counsel allegedly in collaboration with Atty. Chad Rodolfo Miel.
On October 1, 2013, the trial court issued an Order granting private respondent’s fourth motion to declare petitioners in default and allowing private respondent to present his evidence ex parte.[29] The trial court stressed that petitioners failed to comply with the conditions set in the Order dated May 14, 2013 and that the new counsel’s entry of his appearance on the very day of the scheduled hearing was demonstrative of their intention to delay the proceedings. Moreover, Atty Chad Rodolfo Miel, one of petitioners’ new counsels, was not totally unaware of the proceedings, having previously appeared as representative of petitioner corporation in the December 6, 2012 hearing. Thus:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the plaintiffs Fourth Motion to Declare Defendants in Default is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the plaintiff is hereby allowed to present his evidence ex-parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof pursuant to Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules on Civil Procedure.”[30]
Petitioners moved for reconsideration,[31] but the same was denied by the trial court in an Order dated December 10, 2013.[32]
Hence, petitioners filed the present petition based on this lone ground:
THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION AND/OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT ISSUED THE ASSAILED ORDER DATED OCTOBER 1, 2013 GRANTING THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DECLARE PETITIONERS IN DEFAULT FOR ITS FAILURE TO APPEAR ON THE SCHEDULED PRE-TRIAL ON JUNE 13, 2013 DESPITE THE FACT OF ITS CANCELLATION AND RESETTING TO AUGUST 15, 2013 DUE TO THE EMERGENCY LEAVE OF THE JUDGE AND IN ISSUING THE ORDER DATED DECEMBER 10, 2013 DENYING PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF DEFAULT.[33]
THE ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring petitioners as in default for their repeated failure to appear at the pre-trial and to file judicial affidavits.
THE COURT’S RULING
Petitioners contend that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in granting private respondent’s fourth motion to declare them as in default for their failure to attend the pre-trial conference on June 13, 2013. Allegedly, there was no pre-trial to speak of since the pre-trial conference on June 13, 2013 was cancelled and reset to August 15, 2013 because respondent judge was on emergency leave.[34]
Private respondent, on the other hand, stresses that petitioners did not only become remiss in their duty to appear at the pre-trial but they brazenly disregarded the trial court’s Orders and stern warnings as well.[35] The pre-trial conference had been set and reset by the trial court for several times due mainly to the absence of petitioners and/or their counsel;[36] and petitioners daringly violated all the conditions imposed in the Order dated May 21, 2013, i.e., that the June 13, 2013 hearing will be the last resetting and that petitioners should comply with the Order dated April 3, 2013 directing the parties to submit their judicial affidavits.[37]
The petition is bereft of merit.
Pre-trial, by definition, 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.[38] It is an answer to the clarion call for the speedy disposition of cases.[39]
Sections 4 and 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides:
“Sec. 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.
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.” (emphasis supplied)
Like all rules of procedure, the rule on pre-trial admits of exceptions for valid and justifiable reasons.[40] In Sanchez v. Court of Appeals,[41] the Supreme Court restated the reasons that may provide justification for a court to suspend a strict adherence to procedural rules, such as: (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property; (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (c) the merits of the case; (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and (f) the fact that the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.[42] The present case does not fall under any of the aforementioned exceptions.
There is no question that the pre-trial conference had been rescheduled several times for over a period of almost two (2) years. From October 18, 2011 to August 15, 2013, pre-trial hearings were reset six (6) times due to the failure of petitioners to appear before the trial court. Thus:
(i) On October 14, 2011, petitioners filed an urgent motion for resetting of the pre-trial conference set on October 18, 2011 on the ground that their officers were on business trip to New York, U.S.A. This is despite the fact that a pre-trial notice[43] was issued by the trial court as early as September 5, 2011;
(ii) On the next scheduled pre-trial date, February 28, 2012, petitioners again moved for resetting by reason of their counsel’s travel to Canada.
(iii) On May 24, 2012, none of the petitioners and/or their counsel appeared because counsel Atty. Neumeran’s father passed away.
(iv) On October 25, 2012, petitioners’ counsel failed to appear. The trial court reset the hearing for the last time on December 6, 2012, with a stern warning that “no postponements shall be allowed.”
(v) On December 6, 2012, petitioners’ counsel was again absent because he was allegedly stranded in Mindanao due to typhoon Pablo.
(vi) On May 21, 2013, petitioners’ counsel, Atty. Neumeran moved to withdraw his appearance as counsel and to postpone further the pre-trial.
In its Order dated May 21, 2013, the trial court granted petitioners’ motion to postpone the pre-trial hearing and reset the same on June 13, 2013, on the condition that the same will be the last resetting and petitioners’ failure to comply with the Order dated April 3, 2013 requiring the submission of judicial affidavits and documentary evidence will be a cause for them to declared in default. Thus:
“Finding the Motion and Explanation given by Atty. Neumeran to be well taken, the Court is inclined to grant the same, on condition however, that this will be the last resetting and in the event that the defendants will still fail to comply with the Order of this Court dated April 3, 2013 and to appear on the next scheduled pre-trial, they will be declared in default and no Motion for Reconsideration will be entertained. The defendants are directed to seek the services of another counsel as soon as possible and no further postponements will be allowed.
Set the pre-trial of this case on June 13, 2013 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning, which date is intransferrable in character.”[44] (underscoring supplied)
Notwithstanding the foregoing final and stern warning from the trial court, another entry of appearance was filed by petitioners’ new collaborating counsel who moved that the June 13, 2013 hearing be postponed or suspended. The fact that petitioners hired a new counsel is of no moment. Records show that the purported new counsel, Atty. Chad Rodolfo Miel, is the corporate secretary of petitioner corporation who previously appeared before the trial court during the December 6, 2012 hearing. Evidently, petitioners’ asseveration that they needed further time to study the case since they have a “new counsel” cannot be sustained.
Petitioners’ contention that the trial court was not in session on June 13, 2013 in view of respondent judge’s absence and, therefore, they cannot be penalized for their failure to appear thereon, does not detract from the fact that petitioners failed to comply with the trial court’s Order for them to submit judicial affidavits. This is in violation of the clear declaration of the trial court in its Order dated April 3, 2013, as reiterated in its Order dated May 21, 2013, that failure to comply therewith will be a cause for their declaration as in default.
The above considerations show that the trial court had extended more than enough understanding and leniency towards petitioners. Petitioners were the one who abused this understanding and leniency of the trial court.
Verily, pre trial cannot be taken for granted.[45] It is not a mere technicality in court proceedings for it serves a vital objective: the simplification, abbreviation and expedition of the trial, if not indeed its dispensation.[46] Pre trial rules are not to be belittled or dismissed because their non-observance may result in prejudice to a party’s substantive rights.[47] Like all rules they should be followed except for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.48
Then again, a special civil action for certiorari is intended for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[49] As a rule, certiorari may be issued only where it is clearly shown that there is patent and gross abuse of discretion as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reasons of passion or personal hostility.[50] Here, the records are bereft of any indication that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the subject Orders dated October 1, 2013 and December 10, 2013.
WHEREFORE, the petition is denied for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, S.C., and Hernando, R.P.L., J.J. ,concur.
[1] pp.4-32, Rollo.
[2] pp. 36-40, Ibid.
[3] p. 41, Ibid.
[4] pp.104-109, Ibid.
[5] pp. 42-46, Ibid.
[6] p. 43, Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] p. 45, Ibid.
[9] pp. 47-51, Ibid.
[10] p. 49, Ibid.
[11] pp. 14 and 139, Ibid.
[12] p. 14, Ibid.
[13] p. 57, Ibid.
[14] p. 66, Ibid.
[15] pp. 58-62, Ibid.
[16] p. 68, Ibid.
[17] p. 16 and 69, Ibid.
[18] p. 83, Ibid.
[19] p. 86, Ibid.
[20] pp. 87-89, Ibid.
[21] pp. 90-91, Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] pp. 92-93, Ibid.
[25] p. 94, Ibid.
[26] pp. 95-98, Ibid.
[27] p. 99, Ibid.
[28] pp. 100-102, Ibid.
[29] pp. 36-40, Ibid.
[30] p. 40, Ibid.
[31] pp. 104-109, Ibid.
[32] p. 41, Ibid.
[33] p. 21, Ibid.
[34] pp. 6-7, Ibid.
[35] p. 120, Ibid.
[36] p.121, Ibid.
[37] pp.1123-124, Ibid.
[38] Anson Trade Center, Inc. et al. vs. Pacific Banking Corporation, G.R No. 179999, 581 SCRA 751, March 17, 2009 citing cases.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. vs. Mosquera, 423 SCRA 305, 308 (2004) citing Insular Veneer, Inc. v. Plan, G.R. No. L-40155, 73 SCRA 1, 10 September 1976.
[41] 404 SCRA 540 (2003).
[42] Ibid.
[43] p. 139, Rollo.
[44] pp. 90-91, Ibid.
[45] The Philippine American Life & General Insurance Co.vs. Joseph Enario, G.R. No. 182075, 630 SCRA 607, September 15, 2010.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Saguid vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150611, 403 SCRA 678, June 10, 2003.
[48] Ibid.
[49] People vs. Court of Appeals, 423 SCRA 605, 612 (2004).
[50] Ala-Martin v. Sultan, 366 SCRA 316, 321 (2001) citing Lalican vs. Vergara, 276 SCRA 518 (1997).