G.R. No. L-15792; May 30, 1960
ELENA PERALTA VDA. DE CAINA, petitioner, vs. HON. ANDRES REYES, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pasig, Rizal, and FLAVIANO T. DALISAY, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Flaviano T. Dalisay, Jr. filed an ejectment complaint against Lorenzo A. Yutuc in the Justice of the Peace Court of Caloocan, Rizal, claiming ownership of a parcel of land formerly registered in the name of Valeriano Caina. During the trial, Elena Peralta Vda. de Caina, representing her three children, filed a complaint in intervention, alleging she was the surviving spouse of Valeriano Caina, that the land was part of their inheritance, that Dalisay’s title was acquired through fraud, and that Yutuc owed her rentals. The justice of the peace court rendered judgment in favor of Dalisay against Yutuc and the intervenors. The intervenor appealed to the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Civil Case No. 5108). In the Court of First Instance, plaintiff Dalisay did not file an answer to the complaint in intervention. The court set the case for pre-trial. On the scheduled pre-trial date, neither the intervenor nor her counsel appeared. Upon Dalisay’s motion, the court dismissed the complaint in intervention. A motion to set aside the dismissal and a subsequent motion for reconsideration were denied. The intervenor filed this petition for certiorari, claiming the dismissal was arbitrary and a grave abuse of discretion, that her failure to appear was due to excusable negligence (her counsel’s clerk forgot to deliver the notice due to pressure of work), and that dismissal deprived her of due process.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint in intervention for failure of the intervenor and her counsel to appear at the pre-trial conference.

RULING

No. The Court of First Instance did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
1. Power to Dismiss: The court had the power to dismiss the complaint in intervention for failure to appear at a pre-trial. Under Rule 25, the court has discretion to order a pre-trial to prevent lengthy trials and may compel obedience to its orders. Failure to appear at a pre-trial can be considered a failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order, which are grounds for dismissal under Section 3, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court. This interpretation aligns with American jurisprudence on similar federal rules.
2. Lack of Grave Abuse of Discretion: The petitioner’s claim of excusable negligence was insufficient. The affidavit submitted by the counsel’s clerk explaining the failure was not accompanied by an affidavit of merits stating that the intervenor had a good and valid cause of action which, if proven, would entitle her to judgment. Following precedent (Gonzales vs. Amon), the absence of such an affidavit of merits means the lower court cannot be said to have committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to set aside the dismissal.
3. New Issue Not Considered: The petitioner’s new argument in her memorandum—that the pre-trial was premature because respondent Dalisay had not filed an answer to the complaint in intervention—was not raised in the court below and cannot be entertained for the first time on appeal.
The order of dismissal is affirmed, the petition for certiorari is denied, and the preliminary injunction is dissolved. Costs against petitioner.