GR L 28581; (January, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28581. January 27, 1983. SOLEDAD O. SAN AGUSTIN, petitioner, vs. CAROLINA OROZCO, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Soledad O. San Agustin filed a complaint for annulment of contracts against respondent Carolina Orozco in the Court of First Instance of Manila. During the proceedings, the trial court issued an order directing the parties to explore an amicable settlement. Subsequently, the respondent filed a manifestation in court, alleging that the petitioner was insincere in settling the case and had secured a postponement merely as a dilatory tactic to delay the hearing, thereby also affecting related criminal cases. This manifestation, which functionally operated as a motion to dismiss the complaint, was not formally served upon the petitioner or her counsel.
The trial court, acting on this unserved manifestation, issued an order dated July 22, 1967, dismissing the complaint against respondent Orozco. The court grounded its dismissal on the petitioner’s alleged lack of sincerity in pursuing settlement and her use of postponements for delay. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in an order dated August 19, 1967, prompting the petitioner to appeal the dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed a reversible error in dismissing the complaint based on an unserved motion (manifestation) without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
RULING
Yes, the trial court committed reversible error. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the orders of dismissal and remanded the case for continuation of trial. The legal logic is anchored on fundamental due process and procedural rules. The respondent’s manifestation, which sought the complaint’s dismissal, was substantively a motion to dismiss. However, it was not served upon the adverse party, the petitioner. Citing established jurisprudence (Mankil vs. Revilla, 42 Phil. 81; Sunga vs. Lacson, 23 SCRA 393), the Court emphasized that a motion not served on the opposing party is a mere “piece of paper” that the court has no right to consider. The lower court therefore acted on a void procedural submission.
Furthermore, even assuming the petitioner failed to comply with the court’s directive for amicable settlement, the proper course of action was not outright dismissal. The drastic sanction of dismissal for perceived delay or non-compliance requires a hearing where the party is given an opportunity to explain, present evidence, and argue against the dismissal. The trial court deprived the petitioner of this basic right to be heard. The Supreme Court held that the lower court should have set the matter for hearing to allow the petitioner to comment on the allegations and prove her defense, ensuring fairness and adherence to procedural due process before imposing such a severe penalty.