Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=51704:gr-176706-2008&amp;catid=1510&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:33:27+00:00

Document:
MANIGO K. RAMOS, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES PURITA G. ALVENDIA1 and OSCAR ALVENDIA and SPOUSES JOSE and ARACELI SEVERINO, Respondents.
Assailed via Petition for Review on Certiorari2 are the August 29, 2006 Decision3 and February 16, 2007 Resolution4 of the Court of Appeals affirming the Order dated October 1, 1998 and Resolution dated June 6, 2000 of Branch 253, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Las PiÃ±as City in Civil Case No. LP-97-0107, "Manigo K. Ramos v. Spouses Purita G. Alvenida and Oscar Alvenida and Spouses Jose Severino and Araceli Severino," which declared the plaintiff-herein petitioner non-suited and accordingly dismissed his complaint for failure of his counsel to appear during the scheduled pre-trial and to file a pre-trial brief.
Petitioner was thus prompted to file on April 24, 1997 a Complaint10 against respondents before the RTC of Las PiÃ±as for, inter alia, the cancellation of the titles of respondent spouses Severino's and reconveyance of the parcels of land.
Current level of intelligence falls along the Moderate Mental Retardation level. (Imbecile) with a numerical rating of 52, and with a mental age between 9 to 10 years old. Social IQ may be a little higher but he could not perform complex tasks which will require analytical and logical reasoning. In line with this, capacity to renders [sic] sound judgement congruent with his current chronological age is not possible. Likewise, deduction-induction, conceptual-perceptual capacity and planning are also affected.
As culled from the records, it appears that during the scheduled Pre-Trial Conference of this case on October 1, 1998 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning, the parties and counsel for the defendants were present. Counsel for the plaintiff was not around. As alleged in the Appellant's Brief, plaintiff's counsel arrived at the premises of the trial court at 8:55 o'clock in the morning of the said day but was not allowed to enter the court room, "When he succeeded in gaining entry into the court room, the public respondent judge shouted at him and ordered him to step out" only to learn later that "upon verification at the Office of the Branch Clerk of Court that the case was dismissed because when he called the herein counsel for the plaintiff-appellant was not yet in court, and additionally the pre-trial brief for the plaintiff was not yet on file.23 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied).
the appellate court sustained the trial court's earlier-quoted conclusion that petitioner "did not come forward with the most persuasive reasons. . ."
The dismissal of a complaint for failure to file pre-trial brief is discretionary on the part of the trial court.
. . . The precipitate haste of the lower court in declaring the respondent bank non-suited was uncalled for and deserved a second look. Considering the fact that the counsel for the plaintiff/respondent bank did arrive for the pre-trial conference, though a bit late and that counsel for the defendant was himself also late, the trial court should have called the case again. An admonition to both counsel to be more prompt in appearing before the Court as scheduled would have sufficed, instead of having dismissed the complaint outright.
Unless a party's conduct is so negligent, irresponsible, contumacious, or dilatory as to provide substantial grounds for dismissal for non-appearance, the courts should consider lesser sanctions which would still amount into achieving the desired end.
"Inconsiderate dismissals, even if without prejudice, do not constitute a panacea nor a solution to the congestion of court dockets; while they lend a deceptive aura of efficiency to records of individual judges, they merely postpone the ultimate reckoning between the parties. In the absence of clear lack of merit or intention to delay, justice is better served by a brief continuance, trial on the merits, and final disposition of the cases before the court."
The phrase "in the interest of substantial justice" is not, of course, a magic wand that would automatically compel the suspension of procedural rules.27 But exigencies and situations might occasionally demand flexibility in their application. Considering the circumstances attendant to the present case which are reflected above, substantial justice can be best served if both parties are given the full opportunity to ventilate their respective claims in a full-blown trial.
The Court notes petitioner's Manifestation dated May 22, 200628 before the appellate court that the case had been pending before the Court of Appeals for almost five years since August 2000; that there was a case of forgery and falsification of public documents, docketed as I.S. No. 05-2126, pending before the Office of the City Prosecutor, in which the therein respondents Spouses Alvendia filed an Urgent Motion for Suspension of Proceedings29 on the ground of prejudicial question; and that to the Manifestation was attached Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory Questioned Document Report No. 128-0530 which concluded that the submitted specimen signature of petitioner and his purported signature in the documents involved in the case "were not written by one and the same person." The records do not show whether respondent Spouses Alvendia's Motion to Suspend Proceedings in the said criminal complaint was granted. What is clear is that the case at bar had been unduly prolonged, hence, the urgency of proceeding with the case with utmost dispatch.
WHEREFORE, the assailed August 29, 2006 Decision and February 16, 2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 68087 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Let the records of the case be REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 253, Las PiÃ±as City, which is directed to reinstate Civil Case No. LP-97-0107 to its docket and conduct further proceedings thereon with utmost dispatch in light of the foregoing disquisition.
4 Id. at 166-167. Penned by Justice Arturo G. Tayag with the concurrence of Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Noel G. Tijam.
5 The brothers also owned another lot covered by TCT No. 103608 of the Las PiÃ±as Register of Deeds.
13 Annexes "1" and "2," id. at 58-61.
14 Annexes "1," "2," and "3," id. at 48-50.
22 VideAppellant's Brief filed before the Court of Appeals, CA rollo, p. 26.
25 Republic v. Oleta, G.R. No. 156606, August 17, 2007, 530 SCRA 534, 539-540.
26 Calalang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103185, January 22, 1993, 217 SCRA 462, 470-471.
27 KLT Fruits, Inc. v. WSR Fruits, Inc., G.R. No. 174219, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 713; Landbank of the Philippines v. Ascot Holdings and Equities, Inc., G.R. No. 175163, October 19, 2007, 537 SCRA 396; Villena v. Rupisan, G.R. No. 167620, April 3, 2007; Susuki v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 146979, July 27, 2006, 496 SCRA 651; Bacarra v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 162445, October 20, 2005, 473 SCRA 581.
28 CA rollo, pp. 100-101.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.