ZENAIDA POLANCO, CARLOS DE JESUS, AVELINO DE JESUS,BABY DE JESUS, LUZ DE JESUS, AND DEMETRIO SANTOS, PETITIONERS, VS. CARMEN CRUZ, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, VIRGILIO …

Polanco versus Cruz

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Zenaida Polanco, Carlos de Jesus, Avelino de Jesus, Baby de Jesus, Luz de Jesus, and Demetrio Santos against Carmen Cruz, who is represented by her attorney-in-fact, Virgilio Cruz. Carmen Cruz sued the petitioners for damages, claiming that they maliciously filled her rice fields with soil and palay husk and destroyed her palay crops. The trial court dismissed her complaint for failure to prosecute, and the Court of Appeals reinstated it. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clearest statement that the extreme sanction of dismissal for failure to prosecute is not automatic, and that the duty to promptly move for pre-trial is shared with the clerk of court.

Procedural History

Carmen Cruz filed a complaint for damages before Branch 17 of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos. The petitioners moved to dismiss, arguing that the matter was an agrarian dispute and that the certification against forum shopping was defective. The trial court denied the motion, holding that it had jurisdiction because the complaint alleged a claim for damages and not an agrarian dispute, and that the certification was properly signed by the attorney-in-fact. The petitioners filed an answer and a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. The trial court then issued an order dismissing the case because of the respondent's failure to prosecute. The respondent moved for reconsideration, and when that was denied, she appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals granted the appeal, reversed and set aside the dismissal, reinstated the complaint, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. It held that the respondent had not shown a lack of interest in prosecuting her case, that she had filed several pleadings, and that no substantial prejudice would be caused to the petitioners. The Court of Appeals denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, and the petitioners came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Carmen Cruz, through her attorney-in-fact Virgilio Cruz, filed a complaint for damages against the petitioners. She admitted that the petitioners owned the agricultural land she tilled, but claimed that she was a lawful tenant and was in actual possession of the land. She alleged that on the first and second of July 2000, the petitioners maliciously filled the land with soil and palay husk, destroying her palay crops. She prayed for actual damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, litigation expenses, attorney's fees, and costs.

The petitioners moved to dismiss, but the trial court denied the motion. The petitioners then filed an answer together with a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court also denied. In the meantime, the respondent filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, a comment on the motion for reconsideration, and an answer to the petitioners' counterclaim. The parties and the trial court were still resolving the petitioners' motion for reconsideration when the trial court issued an order dismissing the case for failure to prosecute.

The respondent moved for reconsideration, and when it was denied, she immediately filed a notice of appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and remanded the case, and the petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent committed forum shopping by describing herself as a tenant of the petitioners and mentioning a pending unlawful detainer case.
• Whether or not the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute based on the respondent's failure to promptly move for pre-trial.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Section 1. When conducted. — After the last pleading has been served and filed, it shall be the duty of the plaintiff to promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial.

This provision imposes on the plaintiff the duty to promptly move for pre-trial, which the respondent was accused of failing to do.

Section 3 of Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Section 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.

This provision is the basis for the trial court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to prosecute.

Administrative Matter Number 03-1-09-SC, the new Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures, provides:

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.

This provision shows that the duty to set the case for pre-trial is shared with the clerk of court, who must issue a notice of pre-trial if the plaintiff fails to file the required motion.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent did not commit forum shopping. The Court noted that the petitioners raised the matter of forum shopping for the first time only in their motion for reconsideration, and issues not previously ventilated cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. On the merits, the Court held that there was no identity of reliefs prayed for. The case for damages sought recovery for the destruction of the respondent's palay crops, while the unlawful detainer case involved the possessory and tenancy rights of the respondent. The Court defined forum shopping as follows:

There is forum-shopping when as a result of an adverse decision in one forum, or in anticipation thereof, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum through means other than appeal or certiorari. Forum-shopping exists when two or more actions involve the same transactions, essential facts, and circumstances; and raise identical causes of action, subject matter, and issues.

On the second issue, the Court held that the dismissal of the complaint was too severe a sanction. The Court stressed that even if the plaintiff fails to promptly move for pre-trial without any justifiable cause, the extreme sanction of dismissal might not be warranted if no substantial prejudice would be caused to the defendant and there are special and compelling reasons which would make the strict application of the rule clearly unjustified. The Court found that the respondent prosecuted her action with utmost diligence, having filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, a comment on the motion for reconsideration, and an answer to the counterclaim, and having immediately filed a motion for reconsideration and a notice of appeal. The Court also noted that the respondent's failure to file a motion to set the case for pre-trial was her first and only technical lapse, and that she had not manifested an evident pattern or scheme to delay the disposition of the case. The Court concluded that the ends of justice and fairness would best be served if the parties were given the full opportunity to litigate their claims. The Court also directed the clerk of court of Branch 17 of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos to issue a notice of pre-trial to the parties.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate must retain these rules. First, forum shopping requires an identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought. The absence of an identity of reliefs means there is no forum shopping. Second, the plaintiff has the duty under Section 1 of Rule 18 to promptly move ex parte for the setting of the case for pre-trial after the last pleading has been served and filed. Third, failure to comply with this duty without justifiable cause may result in dismissal under Section 3 of Rule 17, but the extreme sanction of dismissal is not automatic. It may not be warranted if no substantial prejudice would be caused to the defendant and there are special and compelling reasons which would make the strict application of the rule clearly unjustified. Fourth, under Administrative Matter Number 03-1-09-SC, if the plaintiff fails to file the motion within the given period, the clerk of court shall issue a notice of pre-trial. The duty to set the case for pre-trial is therefore shared with the clerk of court.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals reinstating the complaint and remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings, and directed the clerk of court of Branch 17 of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos to issue a notice of pre-trial to the parties.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the dismissal of a complaint for failure to prosecute is the extreme sanction, and it will not be imposed where there is no substantial prejudice to the defendant and no pattern or scheme to delay. Examiners like to use this case to test the interplay between the plaintiff's duty to move for pre-trial under Rule 18 and the clerk of court's duty to issue a notice of pre-trial under Administrative Matter Number 03-1-09-SC.