GR 153432; (February, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 153432 ; February 18, 2004
BAHIA SHIPPING SERVICES, INC., MA. CYNTHIA G. MENDOZA and RED BAND A/S, petitioners, vs. OSCAR P. MOSQUERA, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Oscar Mosquera filed a complaint against petitioners before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied, leading them to initiate certiorari proceedings before the Court of Appeals and subsequently the Supreme Court. In the interim, the RTC scheduled a pre-trial conference. Petitioners filed a manifestation with motion to defer the pre-trial due to the pending certiorari petition.
Petitioners’ counsel, Atty. Ruben Capahi, contacted the RTC branch clerk of court, Atty. Elizabeth Sumague-Payba, by telephone. After conferring with the presiding judge, she informed Atty. Capahi that there was no need to file a pre-trial brief or attend the scheduled conference, as the court would first rule on the motion to defer. Atty. Capahi later reconfirmed this advice directly with the presiding judge. Despite this assurance, the judge proceeded with the pre-trial hearing on September 17, 1997, in the absence of petitioners and their counsel.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in declaring petitioners in default for their failure to file a pre-trial brief and attend the pre-trial conference, despite having received explicit assurances from the court itself that such attendance and filing were not required pending resolution of a motion to defer.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court emphasized that while pre-trial is mandatory and non-appearance can result in severe consequences like a default judgment, procedural rules must not be applied so rigidly as to defeat substantial justice. The core legal principle applied is that a liberal construction of procedural rules is warranted when non-observance is not deliberate, does not cause undue delay, and where a strict application would result in great injustice.
In this case, petitioners’ failure to appear and file the brief was not due to negligence or a willful disregard of the rules. They relied in good faith on the explicit verbal assurances given by the court’s own personnel and the judge. Neither the judge nor the clerk of court refuted these factual allegations in their subsequent orders. Therefore, declaring petitioners in default under these circumstances constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The objective of procedure is to secure a fair hearing on the merits. The case was remanded to the RTC for trial to allow both parties to fully litigate their dispute.