GR 169131; (January, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 169131-32; January 20, 2006
LULLETE S. KO and ARLETTE SIMPLICIANO BASILIO, Petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Laoag Branch, and the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ILOCOS NORTE, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners filed a complaint for Annulment of Mortgage, Extra-judicial Foreclosure Sale, and related documents against respondents, alleging the mortgage was void for lack of their written consent as beneficiaries. During the proceedings, petitioners and their counsel failed to appear at a scheduled trial. Respondent bank moved to dismiss the complaint due to this failure and an apparent lack of interest in prosecuting the action. The Regional Trial Court granted the motion and dismissed the case.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, arguing they were negotiating to repurchase the property and that respondent bank had also been guilty of non-appearance. The trial court denied the motion. Petitioners then filed a petition for review on certiorari directly with the Supreme Court, raising procedural error in the dismissal and arguing that the case’s substantive merits concerning a significant property should override procedural technicalities.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petition for review on certiorari assailing the dismissal of the complaint for failure to prosecute.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. On procedure, the Court held petitioners availed of the wrong remedy. An order of dismissal for failure to prosecute under Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court has the effect of an adjudication on the merits. The proper recourse from such a final order of the Regional Trial Court was an ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals via a notice of appeal under Rule 41, not a petition for review under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court. Rules of procedure are not mere technicalities but are essential for the orderly administration of justice and cannot be lightly disregarded by invoking “substantial justice.”
On the merits of the dismissal itself, the Court found no error. The trial court’s dismissal was justified due to petitioners’ and their counsel’s repeated failure to attend hearings over a span of three years, demonstrating a clear lack of interest in prosecuting the action. This inaction prejudiced the right of the respondent to the speedy disposition of the case. Petitioners were not denied due process as they were given the opportunity to be heard but failed to avail themselves of it through their own inadvertence. The dismissal order thus stands.