G.R. No. L-55102. June 19, 1985.
GORGONIO TEJERO, petitioner, vs. HON. EULALIO D. ROSETE, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, Branch IV and FRANCISCO ARES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Gorgonio Tejero filed a complaint for cancellation of a land purchase agreement and damages against private respondent Francisco Ares before the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental. Tejero alleged that Ares failed to pay the monthly installments for two subdivision lots. In his answer, Ares raised special defenses including lack of jurisdiction, justifiable reason for suspending payment, and full payment through tender and consignation, and he filed a counterclaim for damages.
The case was set for its first pre-trial conference. On that date, petitioner Tejero failed to appear due to sickness leading to paralysis. However, his counsel, Atty. Cecilio A. Pepito, Jr., appeared armed with a notarized Special Power of Attorney authorizing him to represent Tejero and to compromise the case. During the pre-trial, counsel could not admit or deny the authenticity of signatures on receipts of payment presented by Ares, stating he needed to verify with his client.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for non-suit due to the plaintiff’s absence and his counsel’s inability to admit the genuineness of signatures on receipts during the pre-trial.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court annulled the orders of dismissal. The Court ruled that while the appearance of parties and counsel at pre-trial is mandatory under the Rules, the sanction of dismissal for non-appearance should not be applied implacably. Rules of procedure are tools to secure substantial justice and should be liberally construed. The dismissal was unduly harsh considering it was the first pre-trial setting, the plaintiff’s absence was due to a serious illness, and his counsel was present with a special power of attorney.
The respondent judge’s basis for dismissal—counsel’s inability to authenticate signatures—was insufficient. The proper course was to reset the pre-trial to allow verification or to terminate the pre-trial and proceed to trial on the merits, where the private respondent could present evidence on the disputed receipts. No substantial right of the private respondent was prejudiced by the refusal to admit the signatures at that stage. Inconsiderate dismissals do not cure court congestion; justice is better served by a continuance and a trial on the merits. The case was remanded for further proceedings.