GR 202597; (February, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 202597, February 8, 2017
SPOUSES SERGIO C. PASCUAL and EMMA SERVILLION PASCUAL, Petitioners vs. FIRST CONSOLIDATED RURAL BANK (BOHOL), INC., ROBINSONS LAND CORPORATION and ATTY. ANTONIO P. ESPINOSA, Register of Deeds, Butuan City, Respondents
FACTS
Petitioners filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA) to nullify an RTC decision canceling their notice of lis pendens. The CA scheduled a mandatory preliminary conference and ordered the filing of pre-trial briefs. Petitioners did not file their pre-trial brief. Instead, they filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Motion to Hold Pre-Trial in Abeyance. Neither the petitioners nor their counsel appeared at the scheduled preliminary conference.
The CA dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment due to petitioners’ failure to appear at the preliminary conference and to file the required pre-trial brief. The CA ruled that such failure, under the Rules of Court, warranted dismissal with prejudice. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied it for being filed out of time, as it was sent via private courier and deemed filed only upon the CA’s actual receipt, which fell outside the reglementary period.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment due to petitioners’ procedural defaults.
RULING
Yes, the CA’s dismissal was proper. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on two primary legal grounds. First, on procedural timeliness, the Court upheld the CA’s application of its 2009 Internal Rules, which provide that motions filed via private messengerial services are deemed filed only upon the court’s actual receipt. Petitioners dispatched their motion for reconsideration on the last day of the 15-day period but the CA received it three days later. This constituted a late filing, rendering the earlier dismissal resolution final and executory.
Second, on the substantive procedural violation, the Court emphasized that a petition for annulment of judgment is an original action where pre-trial is mandatory under Rule 47. The petitioners’ failure to appear at the preliminary conference and to file a pre-trial brief, as required by Rules 18 and 47, is a valid ground for dismissal with prejudice. Their filing of a Motion for Summary Judgment did not justify suspending the pre-trial. The rules explicitly contemplate that the propriety of a summary judgment is a matter to be determined during the pre-trial conference itself. The petitioners could not arrogate unto themselves the discretion to dictate court procedure. Strict compliance with procedural rules is indispensable for the orderly administration of justice, and dismissal was the appropriate sanction for their non-compliance.