GR 182426; (February, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 182426 February 13, 2009
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 CRUZ, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Carmen Cruz, through her attorney-in-fact, filed a complaint for damages against petitioners, alleging they destroyed her palay crops. She claimed to be a lawful tenant of petitioners’ agricultural land and that petitioners maliciously filled it with soil and palay husk. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss, which the trial court denied, holding it had jurisdiction as the claim was for damages, not an agrarian dispute, and the Certification of Non-forum Shopping was properly signed by the attorney-in-fact. Petitioners filed an Answer and a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. On January 9, 2002, the trial court dismissed the case for respondent’s failure to prosecute. The Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal, reinstating the complaint. Petitioners then filed this Petition for Review, arguing respondent failed to promptly move to set the case for pre-trial as required by the Rules, and that her allegations constituted forum shopping.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint for failure to prosecute, despite respondent’s failure to promptly move for pre-trial setting.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. The dismissal of the complaint was too severe a sanction. Respondent prosecuted her action with diligence by filing an opposition to the motion to dismiss, a comment to the motion for reconsideration, and an Answer to Counterclaim. Failing to file a motion to set the case for pre-trial was her first and only technical lapse, with no pattern of delay or scheme to delay disposition. No substantial prejudice would be caused to petitioners by proceeding with the case. The rule against forum shopping was not violated, as the issue was raised too late and, in any case, there was no identity of reliefs between the damages case and a related unlawful detainer case. The Court emphasized that technicalities should not prevail over giving parties full opportunity to litigate. The clerk of court was directed to issue a notice of pre-trial pursuant to A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC.