GR 113349; (January, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 113349 ; January 18, 1996
SPOUSES ROBERTO AND LILIA MONDONEDO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. LUCIA VIOLAGO ISNANI, as Presiding Judge of Br. 59, Regional Trial Court of Makati, MAKATI DEPUTY SHERIFF MAXIMO CONTRERAS, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MAKATI, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAS PIÑAS, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BAGUIO CITY, and SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Spouses Mondonedo filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul orders from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati that dismissed their complaint. The RTC dismissed the case after their counsel failed to appear on time for the pre-trial conference. Counsel attributed the delay to flooded streets caused by a typhoon, a reason contested by private respondent Security Bank and Trust Company. The RTC declared the petitioners non-suited and dismissed their complaint.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari. It ruled that the proper remedy from an order of dismissal for failure to appear at pre-trial is an appeal, not a special civil action for certiorari. The appellate court also noted a procedural defect, as the petition failed to state the date of receipt of the order denying their motion for reconsideration, preventing a determination of the petition’s timeliness.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the petition for certiorari, holding that appeal is the correct remedy from an order dismissing a complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to appear at the pre-trial.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ resolutions. The legal logic is firmly established: a dismissal of a complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to appear at a pre-trial hearing is generally considered an adjudication on the merits, unless the trial court specifies otherwise. Consequently, such a dismissal order is a final resolution of the case. The aggrieved party’s remedy is to file a timely appeal from that final order. If a motion for reconsideration is filed and subsequently denied, the appeal properly lies from both the original order of dismissal and the order denying reconsideration.
The Court emphasized the fundamental principle that where an appeal is available and adequate, a writ of certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal. Since an ordinary appeal was the proper and sufficient remedy against the RTC’s dismissal order, the special civil action for certiorari was an incorrect procedural recourse. The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the appellate court’s application of this doctrine and its observation regarding the petition’s procedural insufficiency. The temporary restraining order previously issued was lifted.