Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53010:gr-177456-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 11:41:42+00:00

Document:
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner, v. DOMINGO R. DANDO, Respondent.
Before this Court is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, filed by petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), assailing (1) the Decision1 dated 20 November 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 82881, which granted the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by herein respondent Domingo R. Dando (Dando); and (2) the Resolution dated 4 April 2007 of the appellate court in the same case denying the Motion for Reconsideration of BPI. The Court of Appeals, in its assailed Decision, annulled the Orders dated 13 January 2004 and 3 March 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 149, setting Civil Case No. 03-281 for pre-trial conference; and reinstated the earlier Order dated 10 October 2003 of the RTC dismissing Civil Case No. 03-281 for failure of BPI to file its pre-trial brief.
After Dando filed with the RTC his Answer with Counterclaim,7 BPI filed its Motion to Set Case for Pre-Trial. Acting on the said Motion, the RTC, through Acting Presiding Judge Oscar B. Pimentel (Judge Pimentel), issued an Order8 on 11 June 2003 setting Civil Case No. 03-281 for pre-trial conference on 18 August 2003. Judge Pimentel subsequently issued, on 16 June 2003, a Notice of Pre-Trial Conference,9 which directed the parties to submit their respective pre-trial briefs at least three days before the scheduled date of pre-trial. Dando submitted his Pre-trial Brief10 to the RTC on 11 August 2003. BPI, on the other hand, filed its Pre-trial Brief11 with the RTC, and furnished Dando with a copy thereof, only on 18 August 2003, the very day of the scheduled Pre-Trial Conference.
On calling this case for the pre-trial conference, counsel for both parties appeared and even [respondent] Domingo R. Dando appeared. The attention of the Court was called by the counsel for the [respondent Dando] that the counsel for the [petitioner BPI] only filed her Pre-Trial Brief today at 9:00 o'clock in the morning instead of at least three days before the pre-trial conference, as required by the Rules. This prompted the counsel for the [respondent Dando] to ask for the dismissal of the case for violation of Rule 18 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Counsel for the [respondent Dando] even claims that he has not received a copy of the pre-trial brief, but then according to the counsel for the [petitioner BPI], a copy thereof was sent by registered mail to counsel for the [respondent Dando] since (sic) August 18, 2003, and considering the nature of the motion of the counsel for the [respondent Dando], it is best that the [respondent Dando's] counsel reduce the same in writing within five days from today, furnishing personally a copy thereof the counsel for the [petitioner BPI] who is hereby given five days from receipt thereof within which to file her comment and/or opposition thereto, thereafter, the incident shall be considered submitted for Resolution.
On 25 August 2003, Dando filed with the RTC his written Motion to Dismiss Civil Case No. 03-281, for violation of the mandatory rule on filing of pre-trial briefs.13 BPI filed an Opposition14 to Dando's Motion, arguing that its filing with the RTC of the Pre-Trial Brief on 18 August 2003 should be considered as compliance with the rules of procedure given that the Pre-Trial Conference did not proceed as scheduled on said date.
The Court finds merit in plaintiff's motion.
Wherefore, the Order dated October 10, 2003 is hereby reconsidered and set aside.
Finding no new issue raised in defendant's motion, as to warrant a reconsideration of the assailed Order dated January 13, 2004, the instant motion is hereby denied.
The Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated 4 April 2007,26 denied the Motion for Reconsideration of BPI for lack of merit.
A. IS THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, IN ISSUING THE DECISION AND RESOLUTION, CORRECT WHEN IT STRICTLY APPLIED THE RULES OF PROCEDURE.
Failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial.
Herein, BPI instituted Civil Case No. 03-281 before the RTC to recover the amount it had lent to Dando, plus interest and penalties thereon, clearly, a matter of property. The substantive right of BPI to recover a due and demandable obligation cannot be denied or diminished by a rule of procedure,34 more so, since Dando admits that he did avail himself of the credit line extended by FEBTC, the predecessor-in-interest of BPI, and disputes only the amount of his outstanding liability to BPI.35 To dismiss Civil Case No. 03-281 with prejudice and, thus, bar BPI from recovering the amount it had lent to Dando would be to unjustly enrich Dando at the expense of BPI.
The counsel of BPI invokes "heavy pressures of work" to explain his failure to file the Pre-Trial Brief with the RTC and to serve a copy thereof to Dando at least three days prior to the scheduled Pre-Trial Conference.36 True, in Olave v. Mistas,37 we did not find "heavy pressures of work" as sufficient justification for the failure of therein respondents' counsel to timely move for pre-trial. However, unlike the respondents in Olave,38 the failure of BPI to file its Pre-Trial Brief with the RTC and provide Dando with a copy thereof within the prescribed period under Section 1, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, was the first and, so far, only procedural lapse committed by the bank in Civil Case No. 03-281. BPI did not manifest an evident pattern or scheme to delay the disposition of the case or a wanton failure to observe a mandatory requirement of the Rules. In fact, BPI, for the most part, exhibited diligence and reasonable dispatch in prosecuting its claim against Dando by immediately moving to set Civil Case No. 03-281 for Pre-Trial Conference after its receipt of Dando's Answer to the Complaint; and in instantaneously filing a Motion for Reconsideration of the 10 October 2003 Order of the RTC dismissing Civil Case No. 03-281.
Wherefore, premises considered, the instant Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated 20 November 2006 and Resolution dated 4 April 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 82881 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Orders dated 13 January 2004 and 3 March 2004 in Civil Case No. 03-281, insofar as they set aside the prior Order dated 10 October 2003 of the same trial court dismissing the Complaint of petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands for failure of the latter to timely file its Pre-Trial Brief, is REINSTATED. The Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 149, is DIRECTED to continue with the hearing of Civil Case No. 03-281 with utmost dispatch, until its termination. No costs.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo with Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Hakim S. Abdulwahid, concurring; rollo, pp. 6-13.
9 Annex I, Rollo, p. 180.
10 Annex H, id. at 82.
23 In view of the petition filed by Dando before the Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Court, Branch 149 issued an Order dated 19 March 2004 (records, p. 162), indefinitely suspending the proceedings in Civil Case No. 03-281 pending resolution before the Court of Appeals of CA-G.R. SP No. 82881.
28 Mirasol v. Court of Appeals, 403 Phil. 760, 772 (2001).
29 Barranco v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, G.R. No. 168990, 16 June 2006, 491 SCRA 222, 232, citing Reyes v. Torres, 429 Phil. 95, 101 (2002).
30 Polanco v. Cruz, G.R. No. 182426, 13 February 2009.
31 Asian Spirit Airlines (Airline Employees Cooperative) v. Bautista, 491 Phil. 476, 484 (2005).
32 452 Phil. 665, 674 (2003); Macasasa v. Sicad, G.R. No. 146547, 20 June 2006, 491 SCRA 368, 383, citing Barnes v. Padilla, 482 Phil. 903, 915 (2004).
33 Barranco v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, supra note 29.
34 Gosiaco v. Ching, G.R. No. 173807, 16 April 2009.
37 G.R. No. 155193, November 26, 2004, 444 SCRA 479, 495.
38 The respondents in Olave repeatedly failed to comply with the Rules, to wit: (a) the respondents' failure to implead all the indispensable parties in the original complaint, which impelled the petitioners to move that they (the respondents) be ordered to amend their complaint; and b) while the respondents amended their complaint, they still failed to submit the required special power of attorney evidencing the authority of the respondent Antonina Mistas to execute the required certificate against forum shopping in behalf of her sister, respondent Pacita Mistas.
39 Zenaida Polanco v. Carmen Cruz, G.R. No. 182426, 13 February 2009.

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