Anson and Cheng vs.

Pacific Banking Corporation

Facts:

Petitioners Anson Trade Center Inc. (ATCI) and Anson

Emporium Corporation (AEC) are corps. engaged in
retail and wholesale general merchandising and
Cheng is the Vice Head.
Respondent bank is a closed banking institution
undergoing liquidation process by PDIC.
ATCI obtained loan amounting to P4,350,000.00 and
AEC P1,000,000 from respondent bank. As a security,
Chen along with the late Keng Giok provided two
Continuing Surety Agreements. It provided that
respondent bank has the right to retain a lien upon
any or all properties in the accounts of ATCI and AEC.
Petitioners did not pay their loans despite several
attempts.
Petitioner Chen filed Motions to Dismiss instead of
filing an Answer to the Complaint.
AEC, ATCI, and the Estate of Keng Giok filed their
replies. Keng Giok was then dropped as a defendant
because he was long dead prior to the proceedings.
A pre-trial conference was held. The possibility of an
amicable settlement was explored but it was
unsuccessful. The respondents then failed to attend
the next scheduled pre-trial.
Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of
the non-appearance of respondent in the pre-trial
Granted

Respondent filed a MR and prayed for the relaxation

of the rule on non-appearance in pre-trials citing
excusable negligence and interest of justice - Denied
Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari before CA. It
alleged that their absence was not deliberate or
intentional. Further, PDIC was undergoing a
reorganization which resulted to trimming their
manpower handling the litigation work.
Granted

Issue: W/N respondents non-appearance in the pre-trial is

excusable
Ruling: Yes
Pre-trial a procedural device intended to clarify and limit
the basic issues raised by the parties and to take the trial of
cases out of the realm of surprise and maneuvering.
Rule 18, Sec. 5 provides that non-appearance by the
plaintiff in the pre-trial shall be the cause for dismissal of
the action. However, Rule 18, Sec. 4 provides that nonappearance of a party of a party may be excused if there is a
valid cause.
SC found a valid cause in the case at bar Respondents
did not intentionally snub the proceedings. This was caused
by the reorganization of PDIC.
Petition DENIED.