GR 170026; (June, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170026 ; June 20, 2012
SHIMIZU PHILIPPINES CONTRACTORS, INC., Petitioner, vs. MRS. LETICIA B. MAGSALIN, doing business under the trade name “KAREN’S TRADING,” FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION, GODOFREDO GARCIA, CONCORDIA GARCIA, and REYNALDO BAETIONG, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Shimizu filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against respondent Magsalin and FGU Insurance Corporation before the RTC. The RTC admitted FGU Insurance’s third-party complaint against Baetiong and the Garcias. Only Baetiong filed an answer; summons to the Garcias were unserved. Without prior warning or hearing, the RTC issued a one-sentence order dismissing the main case for “failure of the plaintiff to prosecute.” Shimizu moved for reconsideration, which was denied.
Shimizu appealed to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 41. FGU Insurance moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing it raised a pure question of law (the propriety of the dismissal order) and thus fell under the Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The CA agreed with FGU Insurance and dismissed Shimizu’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Shimizu’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that it raised only a pure question of law.
RULING
No. The Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the appeal involved a mixed question of law and fact, properly cognizable by the CA. The core issue was whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute based solely on the bare order, without stating the factual and legal bases for such a drastic action. Resolving this required the CA to examine the records of the case to determine if there was indeed a period of unreasonable inaction by Shimizu that warranted dismissal. This examination of the factual milieu of the case proceedings is a question of fact. The legal question was whether such facts, once established, constituted a valid ground for dismissal under the rules. Since the appeal necessitated a review of both factual circumstances and the application of law, it was not a pure question of law. Therefore, Shimizu correctly appealed to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 41. The CA had jurisdiction and should have decided the appeal on its merits. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the CA for proper proceedings.