GR 172910; (November, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172910 November 14, 2008
SPOUSES LORETO LEYBA and MATEA LEYBA, petitioners, vs. RURAL BANK OF CABUYAO, INC. and ZENAIDA REYES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners-spouses Loreto and Matea Leyba filed a complaint for Nullification of Real Estate Mortgage and Special Power of Attorney against respondents Rural Bank of Cabuyao, Inc. and Zenaida Reyes. They alleged they are the registered owners of a parcel of land in Calamba, Laguna; that Reyes enticed Matea to work in Japan subject to a placement fee; that Matea was made to sign a Special Power of Attorney granting Reyes authority to mortgage the land in exchange for a loan for the placement fee; and that Reyes used the SPA to obtain a loan from RBCI guaranteed by a real estate mortgage over the land. A pre-trial conference was set for April 1, 2005. Petitioners and their counsel failed to attend. The RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of interest to prosecute. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, citing Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting petitioners did not submit medical certificates to support their claim that their failure was due to hypertension and that records showed they wrote their lawyer to withdraw the case.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of the complaint for petitioners’ failure to attend the scheduled pre-trial conference.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision of the CA, and REMANDED the case to the RTC for further proceedings. The Court held that the circumstances merit a reversal, emphasizing the policy to afford party-litigants the amplest opportunity for a just determination of their cases, free from technicalities. It noted petitioners were present in all prior pre-trial conferences except the last one, that the subject matter is a valuable parcel of land, and that petitioners have manifested interest to pursue the case even on appeal. The Court found petitioners adequately explained their failure to attend due to advanced age and a spike in blood pressure, and that no undue prejudice to respondents from a remand was shown. Citing RN Development, Inc. v. A.I.I. System, Inc., the Court ruled that in the absence of a pattern to delay or wanton failure to observe rules, courts should dispense rather than wield authority to dismiss, in the interest of substantive justice.