Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
MANILA EIGHTH DIVISION LUZ CASTOR, BELLA C. MCLOUD, BIENVENIDO CASTOR and HEIRS OF PURA CASTOR, namely: BENJAMIN DE LEON, MARIO DE LEON and EMMA NAZARENOCARAAN as HEIRS OF CELEDONIO CASTOR, represented by BIENVENIDO CASTOR, Plaintiffs- Appellants, -versusNOEL ARCA, SOTERA ARCA and ANDRIAN SARREAL, Defendants- Appellees. CA-G.R. CV No. 87691 Members: SABIO, Jr., J. L., Chairman REYES, Jr., J. C., and DIMARANAN VIDAL, M., JJ. Promulgated: November 27, 2007

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION
VIDAL, M.D., J.: This is an Appeal1 filed by Plaintiffs-Appellants LUZ CASTOR, BELLA C. MCLOUD, BIENVENIDO CASTOR and Heirs of PURA CASTOR, namely: BENJAMIN DE LEON, MARIO DE LEON and EMMA NAZARENO-CARAAN as Heirs of CELEDONIO CASTOR, represented by BIENVENIDO CASTOR (hereinafter Appellants) seeking the reversal of the Orders2 dated 27 August 2004 and 12 January 20053 of the Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 15, Naic, Cavite, in

1 2

Rollo, pp 19-34 Id, pp 48-51 3 Erroneously typed by the court a quo as January 12, 2004

CA GR CV No. 87691 Decision

Civil Case No. NC-98-908 entitled Luz Castor, et al., vs. Noel Arca, et al., for Recovery of Possession (Accion Publiciana). THE FACTS On 24 July 1998, Appellants instituted a Complaint4 for Accion Publiciana against Defendants-Appellees NOEL ARCA, SOTERA ARCA and ANDRIAN SARREAL (hereinafter Appellees). Thereafter, pre-trial was held.5 On 30 June 2000, the court a quo dismissed the complaint, supra, on the ground that the Appellants failed to prosecute their case. 6 However, on 22 August 2002, after a timely motion for reconsideration by the Appellants, the case was ordered reinstated by the court a quo.7 In its Order dated 14 November 2002, again, the court a quo, on motion by the Appellees, dismissed the case for failure to prosecute as the Appellants and their counsel failed to appear despite notice.8 On 7 February 2003, in the interest of substantial justice and pursuant to the Appellants' motion for reconsideration, said Order was set aside by the court a quo.9 On 25 June 2004, due to the non-appearance of the Appellants' counsel, the court a quo made a warning that the Appellants would have
4 5

Records, pp 1-10 Records, pp 187-194 6 Records, page 231 7 Records, page 238 8 Records, page 243 9 Records, page 251

CA GR CV No. 87691 Decision

their last opportunity to prosecute the case on 27 August 2004 and failure to do so would mean the dismissal of the case.10 On 27 August 2004, when the case was called for hearing, Appellants' counsel failed to show up, thus, upon motion by the Appellees, the court a quo issued an Order dismissing the case. The decretal portion of the court a quo's order reads:
WHEREFORE, finding merit in the motion by defendants, the instant case is hereby ordered DISMISSED pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court for lack of interest of plaintiff to prosecute this case. This dismissal is with prejudice. Atty. Manuelito Diosomito for defendants is notified in open court. Furnish Atty. Acerey Pacheco copy of this Order. SO ORDERED.11

On 12 January 2005, Appellants' motion for reconsideration of the aforecited Order, supra, was denied by the court a quo.12 Hence, the instant appeal. THE ISSUES Appellant ascribes upon the court a quo the lone assignment of error, viz:
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN DISMISSING THE CASE FOR FAILURE TO
10 11

Records, page 266 Records, page 268 12 Records, pp 291-294

CA GR CV No. 87691 Decision

PROSECUTE DESPITE LACK OF PROPER NOTICE TO PLAINTIFFS- APPELLANTS.13

OUR RULING Appellants contend that their right to due process was violated by the court a quo when it dismissed the instant case considering that their absence during the hearing on 27 August 2004 was allegedly due to the fact that their counsel did not receive a copy of the Order dated 25 June 2004, supra.14 Appellants argue that the address of their counsel as indicated in the court's return card was only 2510 Taft Avenue, Manila, while the complete address was 2nd Floor, E.A. Fernandez Building, 2510 Taft Avenue, Manila.15 We are not convinced. The evidentiary records reveal otherwise. Indeed, as correctly observed by the court a quo, it clearly appears that the notification16 dated 25 June 2004 was duly received by both parties, that is, including the Appellants. Moreover, We are fully satisfied with the court a quo's sound and logical ratiocination on the matter, to wit:
xxx It is a common practice by Court personnel to indicate the complete and full address of counsel in the mail envelope, but shorten it in the registry return card to minimize labor and to accomplish more work. That it was so could be deduced from the fact that copy of the August 27, 2004 Order dismissing the case
13 14

Rollo, page 25 Rollo, pp 27-28; 31 15 Rollo, page 62 16 Records, page 265

CA GR CV No. 87691 Decision

was received by plaintiff's' counsel, although the address stated in the corresponding registry return receipt attached in the record was likewise 2510 Taft Avenue, Manila only. Moreover, the registry return receipts for the June 25, 2004 Order and the August 27, 2004 Orders bear similar signatures on the blanks provided for the addressee. That both copies of the Orders were duly received by plaintiffs' counsel was evidenced by the signatures on the blanks for addressee. That the Orders were sent to the same address, and duly received by the person who affixed his signatures in the registry return receipts were borne out by the record. Whether plaintiffs' counsel knew or did not know the signatory was beside the point. What counsel could not deny was that copy of the August 27, 2004 Order sent to the same address and bearing a similar signature for addressee in the registry return receipt was admittedly received by him, as he in fact filed the motion for reconsideration based thereon. So it was but logical to believe that the previous Order of June 25, 2004 sent to his identical address with a corresponding signature of the individual who signed for the received copy of the August 27, 2004 Order was likewise duly delivered to and received by plaintiffs' counsel. An examination of the record would reveal that said signatory likewise affixed his signatures in other registry return receipts attached in the record of this case. Never in the past had plaintiffs' counsel denied receiving copies of court orders and processes corresponding to the return receipts duly signed by that signatory. While giving counsel the benefit of the doubt, the nagging suspicion remains that due receipt of the June 25, 2004 Order is denied to support counsel's absence in the August 27, 2004 hearing set therein. xxx

Appellants assert that the court a quo erred in assuming that because the Order dated 27 August 2004 was received by Appellants' counsel, the Order dated 25 June 2004 is presumed to have been similarly received by him considering that both return cards bear identical address and signatures. They further posit that the authenticity

CA GR CV No. 87691 Decision

and genuineness of signatures cannot be determined by the use of mere naked eyes.17 We do not agree. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the authenticity of signatures is not a highly technical issue in the same sense that questions concerning quantum physics or topology or molecular biology which would constitute matters of a highly technical nature. The signatures on a questioned document can be sighted by a judge who can exercise independent judgment on the issue of authenticity of such signatures.18 Otherwise put, the observation of the trial judge on the signatures appearing in the registry return cards is certainly as credible as that of a handwriting expert considering that any discrepancies thereof may be clearly discernible to the naked eye as they are usually evident in their appearance. Foregoing considered, We are convinced that Appellants, through counsel, were duly notified of the Order dated 25 June 2004. Thus, We find the dismissal of the case to be in order. Furthermore, a careful examination of the evidentiary records revealed that Appellants' counsel had not been diligent in pursuing his client's case as it had been, in no less than two occasions, ordered dismissed by the court a quo for failure to prosecute, first on 30 June 2000 and then on 8 November 2002 .
17 18

Rollo, page 31 Gamido vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 111962-72, 8 December 1995

CA GR CV No. 87691 Decision

For clarity, it bears stressing that the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard and to present evidence in support of one's case.19 Indeed, the court a quo has complied with said requirement as Appellants were obviously given ample opportunities to prosecute their case. In fact, the court a quo had been very liberal and indulgent on the Appellants by granting their motions for reconsiderations and ordered the reinstatement of the case despite Appellants' blatant violations of the rules. On this point, let us hear the court a quo's relevant observation, viz:
xxx For more than five (5) years pre-trial was terminated and yet plaintiffs had not even commenced the presentation of their evidence, prompting this Court to dismiss herein case twice for lack of interest to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time. But such dismissals were reconsidered on the promise of plaintiffs to earnestly exert efforts to facilitate the proceedings thereafter. But this third time the patience of the Court has run out as it is manifest that plaintiffs have been trifling with the Court by dilatory legal maneuvers. xxx

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Orders of the court a quo STAND. SO ORDERED. MYRNA DIMARANAN VIDAL Associate Justice
19

Nachura, Eduardo, Outline Reviewer in Political Law, page 68, 2002 edition

CA GR CV No. 87691 Decision

WE CONCUR: JOSE L. SABIO, JR. Associate Justice JOSE C. REYES, Jr. Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusion in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. JOSE L. SABIO, JR. Associate Justice Chairman, 8th Division