Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d2fafe601e452f68f003600fb002c009e/p/ATB247/?username=Guest Page 1 of 12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 724 14/09/2019, 8*17 PM
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
526
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d2fafe601e452f68f003600fb002c009e/p/ATB247/?username=Guest Page 2 of 12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 724 14/09/2019, 8*17 PM
527
PEREZ, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the 27 July
2006 Decision[2] and the 12 February 2007 Resolution of
the Sixteenth Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-
G.R. CV No. 84983. The Decision reversed the Orders of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 83,
dated 31 January 2005[3] and 22 April 2005,[4] which
dismissed the complaint filed by Juanito C. Fernandez
(respondent) against Augusto C. Soliman (petitioner) in
Civil Case No. Q-04-52183 and denied respondentÊs Motion
for Reconsideration.
Culled from the records are the following antecedent
facts:
On 10 March 2003, SMC Pneumatics Philippines, Inc.
(SMC Pneumatics) filed a Motion for Appointment of
Management Committee before the RTC (Special
Commercial Court) of Calamba City, Branch 34, docketed
as RTC SEC Case No. 44-2003-C.[5] It was consolidated
with SEC Case No. 50-2003-C and SEC No. 49-2003. The
latter two cases refer to the involuntary dissolution cases
filed by SMC Pneumatics.[6] As a result, the RTC issued an
Order[7] appointing respondent
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d2fafe601e452f68f003600fb002c009e/p/ATB247/?username=Guest Page 3 of 12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 724 14/09/2019, 8*17 PM
_______________
[1] Rollo, pp. 9-29; Penned by Associate Justice Eliezer R. De Los
Santos, with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Myrna
Dimaranan Vidal, concurring.
[2] Id., at pp. 30-34.
[3] Records, p. 111.
[4] Id., at p. 162.
[5] Id., at p. 8.
[6] Id.
[7] Id., at pp. 8-11.
528
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d2fafe601e452f68f003600fb002c009e/p/ATB247/?username=Guest Page 4 of 12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 724 14/09/2019, 8*17 PM
Admit Answer dated June 10, 2004 was granted and the Answer
attached thereto was admitted. Said Order was received by counsel
for the [respondent] on September 21, 2004 but to date, said counsel
has not taken any step for the further prosecution of this case.
_______________
[8] Id., at p. 9.
[9] Id., at p. 2.
[10] Id., at pp. 1-7.
[11] Id., at pp. 86-87.
[12] Id., at p. 96.
[13] Id., at pp. 97-103.
[14] Id., at p. 110.
529
Within five (5) days from the date of filing of reply, the plaintiff
must promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial
conference. If the plaintiff fails to file said motion within the given
period, the Branch COC shall issue a notice of pre-trial.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d2fafe601e452f68f003600fb002c009e/p/ATB247/?username=Guest Page 5 of 12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 724 14/09/2019, 8*17 PM
_______________
[15] Id., at p. 111.
[16] Id., at pp. 112-129.
[17] Id., at p. 166.
[18] CA Rollo, pp. 10-31.
[19] A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC.
530
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d2fafe601e452f68f003600fb002c009e/p/ATB247/?username=Guest Page 6 of 12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 724 14/09/2019, 8*17 PM
_______________
[20] Rollo, p. 34.
[21] Id., at pp. 35-37.
[22] Id., at p. 38.
[23] Id., at p. 15.
531
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d2fafe601e452f68f003600fb002c009e/p/ATB247/?username=Guest Page 7 of 12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 724 14/09/2019, 8*17 PM
_______________
[24] Vda. de Palanca, et al. v. Chua Keng Kian, et al., 137 Phil. 1, 7; 27 SCRA
356, 363 (1969).
[25] Id.
[26] Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 396 Phil. 497,
505-506; 342 SCRA 327, 334 (2000).
[27] Regner v. Logarta, 562 Phil. 883; 537 SCRA 277 (2007).
[28] 504 Phil. 126, 149; 466 SCRA 557, 582-583 (2005).
532
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d2fafe601e452f68f003600fb002c009e/p/ATB247/?username=Guest Page 8 of 12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 724 14/09/2019, 8*17 PM
_______________
[29] Records, pp. 8-11.
533
ment but failed to file the same. The fact remains that the
respondent had the option to move for pre-trial and if he
fails to do so as he did, the branch clerk of court had the
duty to have the case set for pre-trial. Moreover, the period
of more than four (4) months or from 21 September 2004 up
to 31 January 2005 may not be considered an unreasonable
length of time to warrant the terminal consequence of
dismissal of the case.
To be sure, the dismissal of the case cannot be for
respondentÊs „failing to take any step for further
prosecution of this case‰ because the further step is not his,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d2fafe601e452f68f003600fb002c009e/p/ATB247/?username=Guest Page 9 of 12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 724 14/09/2019, 8*17 PM
_______________
[30] 532 Phil. 70, 81-82; 500 SCRA 371, 380 (2006).
[31] GUIDELINES TO BE OBSERVED BY TRIAL COURT JUDGES AND CLERKS OF
534
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d2fafe601e452f68f003600fb002c009e/p/ATB247/?username=Guest Page 10 of 12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 724 14/09/2019, 8*17 PM
_______________
[32] Marahay v. Judge Melicor, 261 Phil. 33, 40; 181 SCRA 811, 817
(1990).
[33] Crystal Shipping, Inc. v. Natividad, 510 Phil. 332, 339; 473 SCRA
559, 566 (2005).
535
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d2fafe601e452f68f003600fb002c009e/p/ATB247/?username=Guest Page 11 of 12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 724 14/09/2019, 8*17 PM
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d2fafe601e452f68f003600fb002c009e/p/ATB247/?username=Guest Page 12 of 12