GR 24861; (October, 1971) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24861 October 29, 1971
ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY, AMERICAN PIONEER LINE, MANILA PORT SERVICE and/or MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, as subrogee, filed a complaint for the value of a lost shipment of goods. The suit was filed in the alternative against the carrier defendants (United States Lines Company and American Pioneer Line) and the arrastre operator defendants (Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company). The case had a protracted history, including a prior dismissal for failure to prosecute that was later reinstated. The parties eventually agreed to postpone a pre-trial conference to February 20, 1965. Before that date, the arrastre operator defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the claim against them did not involve admiralty and the amount was within municipal court jurisdiction. The court heard this motion on February 13 and granted plaintiff’s counsel ten days to file an opposition. When February 20 arrived, neither the plaintiff nor its counsel appeared for the pre-trial. The trial court, noting the case’s prior dismissal for lack of interest and the current non-appearance, declared the plaintiff non-suited and dismissed the entire case.
ISSUE
Was the trial court’s order dismissing the entire complaint for plaintiff’s failure to appear at the pre-trial conference proper?
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled partially for the appellant. The dismissal was affirmed with respect to the carrier defendants (United States Lines Company and American Pioneer Line) but reversed with respect to the arrastre operator defendants (Manila Port Service and Manila Railroad Company). As to the carriers, the dismissal was correct on two grounds. Procedurally, pre-trial is mandatory under the Rules of Court, and dismissal for non-appearance is a proper sanction. Substantively, a signed Stipulation of Facts between the plaintiff and the carriers explicitly absolved them from liability, stating the goods were discharged in good condition and the vessel’s responsibility ceased upon discharge. The carriers could have secured a dismissal based on this stipulation at the pre-trial. As to the arrastre operators, the dismissal was erroneous. The pending motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed by these defendants effectively suspended the obligation to proceed with the pre-trial conference concerning them. It was logical to resolve the jurisdictional challenge first, as a finding of no jurisdiction would render any pre-trial proceedings useless. Furthermore, the court’s own order granting the plaintiff time until February 23 to oppose the motion to dismiss superseded the agreement to hold a pre-trial on February 20 with respect to these parties. The case was remanded for further proceedings solely against the arrastre operator defendants.