GR L 30602; (June, 1972) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-30602 June 30, 1972
SPOUSES DOMINADOR R. STA. MARIA, JR. and ERLINDA GIMENO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS; HONORABLE FERNANDO A. CRUZ, as Presiding Judge of Branch XII, Court of First Instance of Caloocan City; SPOUSES ALBERTO V. JACINTO and VENANCIA YUSON; and THE SHERIFF OF CALOOCAN CITY, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners filed a complaint to annul the extrajudicial foreclosure of a property they purchased from respondents. In their answer, respondents denied the material allegations and interposed a counterclaim for damages and attorney’s fees. The trial court initially issued a restraining order. However, petitioners and their counsel repeatedly failed to appear at scheduled hearings, including the pre-trial on December 29, 1967, and the hearing on May 3, 1968. On the latter date, despite a pending motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, petitioners were again absent. Consequently, the trial court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and, declaring petitioners in default on the counterclaim, proceeded to hear the counterclaim ex parte, rendering judgment awarding damages to respondents.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint and proceeding with the ex parte hearing on the counterclaim despite the absence of a pre-trial and a pending motion for leave to amend.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the petition for certiorari, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is that a plaintiff who, through repeated non-appearance, prevents or delays the prosecution of his own complaint cannot invoke the doctrine that a complaint cannot be dismissed if the counterclaim cannot be independently adjudicated. This doctrine is intended to protect a defendant’s right to have a connected counterclaim resolved, not to benefit a plaintiff who employs delaying tactics. Here, petitioners’ own conduct in failing to attend hearings justified the trial court’s action to proceed on the counterclaim ex parte after declaring them in default. The proper remedy for petitioners was a timely appeal, not a special civil action for certiorari, as no jurisdictional error or grave abuse was present. The trial court acted within its discretion to prevent further delay and prejudice to the counterclaimants.