Carmen Cruz, represented by atty-in-fact, Virgilio Cruz Topic: Setting for Pre-Trial Fcats: 1. A complaint for damages was filed by Carmen, through atty-in-fact, Virgilio Cruz against the Petitioners for destroying her palay crops 2. The petitioners were the owners of the agrigultural land she tilled. She was a lawful tenant and had been in actual possession of the land when they mailiciously filled so with soil and palay husk (July 1 & 2, 2000) 3. That petitioners be held liable for actual damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, litigation expenses and attorneys fees, and costs of the suit. 4. Petitioners filed Motion to Dismiss (Order dated Dec. 4, 2000) but were denied by the trial court. The trial court said that it had jurisdiction over the case because of the claim for damages in the Complaint and not the DARAB. Also, the Complaint was properly filed bec. Certificate of Non-forum shopping was signed by Virgilio.
5. Petitioners simultaneously filed an Answer
to the Complaint and Motion for Reconsideration of the Order. This was denied by the court for lack of merit (Sept. 10, 2001) 6. An Order was issued in Jan. 9, 2002 by the court dismissing the case due to respondents failure to prosecute. 7. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied. An appeal was made to CA which rendered the appeal granted and the case was remanded to RTC Branch 17 Malolos. 8. CA ruled that the trial court erred in finding that the parties failed to take the necessary action regarding the case because the records show: a. When the petitioners filed an Answer to the complaint, respondent filed an Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration with Manifestation Re: Answer of Defendants b. Previous acts of the respondent do not manifest lack of interest to prosecute (since filing the Complaint, she filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss of petitioners, an Answer to the counterclaim, and Comment to the Motion for Reconsideration)
c. She did not ignore the Motion to
Dismiss of the petitioners nor did she repeatedly fail to appear before the court d. No substantial prejudice would be caused to petitioners and the strict application of the rule on dismissal is unjustified; there was an absence of pattern and scheme to delay the disposition of the case on the part of respondent. (justice better served if remanded) e. CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration of the Petitioners. Issue: W/N CAs decision was contrary to law and prevailing jurisprudence Petitioners arguments: 1. Respondent failed to comply with the mandate to promptly move the setting of the case for pretrial. 2. heavy pressures of work does not justify the failure to move the setting of the case for pre-trial 3. Allegations of the Complaint pertain to her status as a tenant of Elena De Jesus and it
amounts to forum shopping that would
extremely prejudice them SCs Ruling: CA correctly noted that they raised the matter of forum shopping for the first time only in their Motion for Reconsideration (issues not previously ventilated cannot be raised for the first time in appeal much less when first raised in the motion for reconsideration of a decision of the appellate court ) Court does not find that the Complaint to be constitutive of the elements of forum shopping. Respondent merely described herself as tenant of petitioners and mentioned that there was an unlawful detainer case involving the parcel of land which is also involved in the instant civil case for damages. Although there was an identity of parties in the instant case for damages and the unlawful detainer case, there is no identity of reliefs prayed for. Sec. 1 Rule 18, imposes upon the plaintiff the duty to promptly
move ex parte to have the case set
for pre-trial after the last pleading has been served and filed. Sec. 3 Rule 17, failure on the part of the plaintiff to comply with said duty without any justifiable cause may result to dismissal of complaint for failure to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time or failure to comply with the rules of procedure. o There are special and compelling reasons which would make the strict application of the rule clearly unjustified. o CA correctly held that the dismissal of the respondents complaint is too severe. Respondent prosecuted her action with utmost diligence and with reasonable dispatch since filling the Complaint. o When the trial court dismissed her case she immediately filed Notice of appeal o She never failed to comply with the Rules of Court or any order of the trial court
at any other time. Failing to
file a motion to set the case for pre-trial was her first and only technical lapse during the entire proceedings. No evident pattern or scheme to delay. (Court, on several occasions relaxed the rigid application of the rules of procedure to fully ventilate the merits of the case) A.M. NO. 03-1-09-SC (took effect on Aug. 16, 2004): o AIMS: to abbreviate court proceedings, ensure prompt disposition of cases and decongest court dockets. o Within 5 days from date of filing of the reply, the plaintiff must promptly move exparte the case to be set for pre-trial conference o If the plaintiff fails to file said motion within the given period, the Branch COC (clerk of court) shall issue a notice of pre-trial. o The COC of RTC Branch 17 of Malolos should issue a
United States v. James Edward Smith, A/K/A Smitty, A/K/A Dumptruck Smitty, United States of America v. Richard Leander Smith, A/K/A Peter, 966 F.2d 1446, 4th Cir. (1992)