G.R. No. L-34057 December 19, 1980
TROPICAL HOMES, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HON. DELFIN FLORES, Judge of the Court of First Instance Of Rizal, Branch XI, Seventh Judicial District, and BENITO LAPUZ, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Benito Lapuz filed a collection suit against petitioner Tropical Homes, Inc. in the Municipal Court of Makati. The municipal court rendered a decision in favor of Lapuz after Tropical Homes failed to appear. Tropical Homes appealed the case to the Court of First Instance (CFI), docketed as Civil Case No. 13217. During the scheduled pre-trial at the CFI, Lapuz and his counsel failed to appear. Respondent Judge Delfin Flores initially issued a verbal order dismissing the case for non-suit. However, the subsequently issued written order declared Lapuz in default and directed Tropical Homes to present its evidence before the branch clerk of court.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent CFI committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the written order declaring the plaintiff in default and ordering the defendant to present evidence, instead of dismissing the case for non-suit as per its initial verbal order.
RULING
Yes, the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion. The appeal from the municipal court, which was not a court of record at the time, required a trial de novo in the CFI. The effect of a perfected appeal in such a case is that it proceeds as if originally filed in the CFI, rendering the municipal court’s decision vacated. Consequently, in the trial de novo, Lapuz remained the plaintiff and Tropical Homes the defendant. Under the Rules of Court, specifically Section 3 of Rule 17 and Section 1 of Rule 18, if the plaintiff fails to appear at the pre-trial, the case may be dismissed for non-suit. If the defendant fails to appear, it may be declared in default. Here, it was the plaintiff Lapuz who was absent. Therefore, the CFI’s correct course of action was to dismiss the case for non-suit, as it initially did verbally. Its written order, which improperly declared the absent plaintiff in default and compelled the present defendant to present evidence, contravened procedural rules. The Supreme Court corrected the written order to reflect the dismissal for non-suit and set aside all subsequent orders insisting on the erroneous directive.