THIRDDIVISION

ZENAIDAPOLANCO,CARLOSG.R.No.182426
DEJESUS,AVELINODEJESUS,
BABYDEJESUS,LUZDEJESUS,
andDEMETRIOSANTOS,
Petitioners,Present:
YnaresSantiago,J.(Chairperson),
versusAustriaMartinez,
ChicoNazario,
Nachura,and
Peralta,JJ.
CARMENCRUZ,representedbyher
attorneyinfact,VIRGILIOCRUZ,Promulgated:
Respondent.
February13,2009
xx

DECISION

YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:

[1]
[2]
ThisPetitionforReviewonCertiorari assailstheAugust28,2007Decision oftheCourtof
[3]
AppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.75079,settingasidetheOrder ofBranch17oftheRegionalTrial
[4]
Court of Malolos in Civil Case No. 542M2000, which dismissed respondents Complaint for
[5]
failuretoprosecute.AlsoassailedistheMarch28,2008Resolution denyingpetitionersMotion
[6]
forReconsideration.

Thefactsareasfollows:

Respondent Carmen Cruz, through her attorneyinfact, Virgilio Cruz, filed a complaint for
damages

[7]
against petitioners for allegedly destroying her palay crops. While admitting that

petitionersowntheagriculturallandshetilled,respondentclaimedshewasalawfultenantthereof
andhadbeeninactualpossessionwhenpetitionersmaliciouslyfilledsowithsoilandpalayhuskon

July 1 and 2, 2000. Respondent prayed that petitioners be held liable for actual damages, moral
damages,exemplarydamages,litigationexpensesandattorneysfees,andcostsofthesuit.

PetitionersfiledaMotiontoDismiss,

[8]
[9]
whichwasdeniedbythetrialcourtinanOrder dated

December 4, 2000. It held that it has jurisdiction over the case because the allegations in the
Complaintmadeaclaimfordamages,andnotanagrariandisputewhichshouldbereferredtothe
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) and that the Complaint was
properly filed because the Certification of Nonforum Shopping was signed by respondents
attorneyinfact.

[10]
Petitioners simultaneously filed an Answer
to the complaint and a Motion for
[11]
Reconsideration
oftheDecember4,2000Order.However, the court a quo denied the motion
[12]
for lack of merit in an Order
dated September 10, 2001. On January 9, 2002, the trial court
[13]
issuedanOrder
dismissingthecaseduetorespondentsfailuretoprosecute.

[14]
[15]
Withthedenial
ofherMotionforReconsideration,
respondentinterposedanappeal
totheCourtofAppealswhichrenderedtheassailedDecisiondatedAugust28,2007,thedispositive
portionofwhichstates:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Order, dated January 9,
2002,oftheRTC[Branch17,Malolos]isherebyREVERSEDandSETASIDE.Plaintiffappellants
Complaint is hereby REINSTATED and the case is hereby REMANDED to the RTC [Branch 17,
Malolos]forfurtherproceedings.

[16]
SOORDERED.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court erred in finding that the parties failed to take
necessary action regarding the case because the records plainly show that petitioners filed an
Answertothecomplaint,whilerespondentfiledanOppositiontotheMotionforReconsideration
[17]
withManifestationRe:AnswerofDefendants.

Withregardtotheorderofthetrialcourtdismissingthecomplaintonthegroundoffailureto
prosecute, the appellate court held that the previous acts of respondent do not manifest lack of
interest to prosecute the case that since filing the Complaint, respondent filed an Opposition to

petitionersMotiontoDismiss,anAnswertopetitionerscounterclaim,andaCommenttopetitioners
Motion for Reconsideration that respondent did not ignore petitioners Motion to Dismiss nor did
she repeatedly fail to appear before the court that no substantial prejudice would be caused to
petitionersandthatstrictapplicationoftheruleondismissalisunjustifiedconsideringtheabsence
ofpatternorschemetodelaythedispositionofthecaseonthepartofrespondentandthatjustice
would be better served if the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings and final
disposition.

On March 28, 2008, the Court of Appeals denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration
hence,thispetitionbasedonthefollowingground:

WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE COURT OFAPPEALS IN C.A.

G.R. CV No. 75079, NULLIFYING AND/OR REVERSING AND/OR SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDERSDATEDJANUARY9,2002ANDMAY8,2002ISSUEDBYTHERTCBULACANIN
CIVILCASENo.542M00,ISCONTRARYTOLAWANDPREVAILINGJURISPRUDENCE.

Petitioners allege that respondent failed to comply with the mandate of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure to promptly move for the setting of the case for pretrial that heavy pressures of
workdoesnotjustifythefailuretomoveforthesettingofthecaseforpretrialthattheallegations
in the Complaint which pertain to respondents status as a tenant of Elena C. De Jesus amount to
forumshoppingthatwouldextremelyprejudicethem.Petitionersthusprayforthenullificationof
the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals and the affirmation of the dismissal of the
Complaintbythetrialcourt.

Thepetitionlacksmerit.

TheCourtofAppealscorrectlynotedthatpetitionersraisedthematterofrespondentsalleged
forum shopping for the first time only in their Motion for Reconsideration. Issues not previously
[18]
ventilatedcannotberaisedforthefirsttimeonappeal,
muchlesswhenfirstraisedinthemotion
forreconsiderationofadecisionoftheappellatecourt.

Atanyrate,thisCourtdoesnotfindrespondentsallegationsinhercomplaintinCivilCaseNo.542
M00tobeconstitutiveoftheelementsofforumshopping.Respondentmerelydescribedherselfas
[19]
a tenant of petitioners and mentioned that there was an unlawful detainer case
involving the
parceloflandwhichisalsoinvolvedintheinstantcivilcasefordamages.

There is forumshopping when as a result of an adverse decision in one forum, or in

anticipation thereof, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum through means other than
appeal or certiorari. Forumshopping exists when two or more actions involve the same
transactions,essentialfacts,andcircumstancesandraiseidenticalcausesofaction,subjectmatter,
andissues.Stillanothertestofforumshoppingiswhentheelementsoflitispendenciaarepresent
orwhereafinaljudgmentinonecasewillamounttoresjudicatainanotherwhetherinthetwoor
morependingcases,thereisanidentityof(a)parties(oratleastsuchpartiesasrepresentthesame
interestsinbothactions),(b)rightsorcausesofaction,and(c)reliefssought.

[20]

Althoughthereisanidentityofsomeofthepartiesintheinstantcasefordamagesandthe
unlawful detainer case, there is, however, no identity of reliefs prayed for. The former is for
recovery of damages allegedly caused by petitioners acts on respondents palay crops while the
lattercaseinvolvedpossessoryandtenancyrightsofrespondent.Assuch,respondentdidnotviolate
theruleonforumshopping.

Section1,Rule18ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedureimposesupontheplaintiffthedutyto
promptlymoveexpartetohavethecasesetforpretrialafterthelastpleadinghasbeenservedand
[21]
filed.Moreover,Section3,Rule17
providesthatfailureonthepartoftheplaintifftocomply
withsaiddutywithoutanyjustifiablecausemayresulttothedismissalofthecomplaintforfailure
to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time or failure to comply with the rules of
procedure.

Itmustbestressedthateveniftheplaintifffailstopromptlymoveforpretrialwithoutany
justifiable cause for such delay, the extreme sanction of dismissal of the complaint might not be
warranted if no substantial prejudice would be caused to the defendant, and there are special and
[22]
compellingreasonswhichwouldmakethestrictapplicationoftheruleclearlyunjustified.

In the instant case, the Court of Appeals correctly held that the dismissal of respondents
complaintistoosevereasanctionforherfailuretofileamotiontosetthecaseforpretrial.Itmust
be pointed out that respondent prosecuted her action with utmost diligence and with reasonable
dispatch since filing the complaint she filed an opposition to petitioners motion to dismiss the
complaintacommenttopetitionersmotionforreconsiderationoftheDecember4,2000Orderof
thetrialcourtandanAnswertoCounterclaimofpetitioners.Whenthetrialcourtissuedanorder
dismissing the case, respondent filed without delay a motion for reconsideration and upon its

[23]
denial,sheimmediatelyfiledaNoticeofAppeal.
Moreover, contrary to petitioners claim that
respondentwassilentforoneyearsinceshefiledherAnswertoCounterclaimuntilthetrialcourts
[24]
dismissal order,
records show that between said period, both parties and the trial court were
threshingoutpetitionersmotionforreconsiderationoftheDecember4,2000Order.

Whileheavypressuresofworkwasnotconsideredapersuasivereasontojustifythefailureto
[25]
set the case for pretrial in Olave v. Mistas,
however, unlike the respondents in the said case,
hereinrespondentneverfailedtocomplywiththeRulesofCourtoranyorderofthetrialcourtat
anyothertime.Failingtofileamotiontosetthecaseforpretrialwasherfirstandonlytechnical
lapseduringtheentireproceedings. Neither has she manifested an evident pattern or a scheme to
delaythedispositionofthecasenorawantonfailuretoobservethemandatoryrequirementofthe
rules.Accordingly,theendsofjusticeandfairnesswouldbestbeservedifthepartiesaregiventhe
fullopportunitytolitigatetheirclaimsandtherealissuesinvolvedinthecasearethreshedoutina
fullblowntrial.Besides,petitionerswouldnotbeprejudicedshouldthecaseproceedastheyarenot
strippedofanyaffirmativedefensesnordeprivedofdueprocessoflaw.

ThisisnottosaythatadherencetotheRulescouldbedispensedwith.However,exigencies
[26]
and situations might occasionally demand flexibility in their application.
Indeed, on several
occasions, the Court relaxed the rigid application of the rules of procedure to afford the parties
opportunity to fully ventilate the merits of their cases. This is in line with the timehonored
principlethatcasesshouldbedecidedonlyaftergivingallpartiesthechancetoarguetheircauses
anddefenses.Technicalityandproceduralimperfectionshouldthusnotserveasbasisofdecisions.
[27]

Finally,A.M.No.03109SCorthenewGuidelinesToBeObservedByTrialCourtJudges
And Clerks Of Court In The Conduct Of PreTrial And Use Of DepositionDiscovery Measures,
which took effect on August 16, 2004, aims to abbreviate court proceedings, ensure prompt
dispositionofcasesanddecongestcourtdockets,andtofurtherimplementthepretrialguidelines
[28]
laiddowninAdministrativeCircularNo.399
datedJanuary15,1999.A.M. No. 03109SC
[29]
statesthat:Withinfive(5)daysfromdateoffilingofthereply,
theplaintiffmustpromptlymove
[30]
ex parte that the case be set for pretrial conference.
If the plaintiff fails to file said motion
withinthegivenperiod,theBranchCOCshallissueanoticeofpretrial.Assuch,theclerkofcourt

ofBranch17oftheRegionalTrialCourtofMalolosshouldissueanoticeofpretrialtotheparties
andsetthecaseforpretrial.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The August 28, 2007
DecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.75079,settingasidetheOrderofBranch17of
theRegionalTrialCourtofMalolosdismissingCivilCaseNo.542M2000forrespondentsfailure
toprosecute,anditsMarch28,2008ResolutiondenyingpetitionersMotionforReconsiderationare
AFFIRMED. The clerk of court of Branch 17 of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos is
DIRECTEDtoissueanoticeofpretrialtotheparties.

SOORDERED.

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJustice

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIOANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

Iattestthattheconclusionsintheabovedecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewas
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.


CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJusticeChairperson,ThirdDivision

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairpersonsAttestation,it
isherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethe
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
Rollo,pp.310.
[2]
Id.at 1523 penned by Associate Justice Edgardo F. Sundiam and concurred in by Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and
MoninaArevaloZenarosa.
[3]
Id.at82.
[4]
Id.at3437.
[5]
Id.at3133.
[6]
Id.at2429.
[7]
CarmenCruz,representedbyherattorneyinfact,VirgilioCruz,plaintiffv.CarlosDeJesus,AvelinoDeJesus,CarlosDeJesus,Alias
SupitDeJesus,BabyDeJesus,LuzDeJesus,ZanaidaPolanco,andDemetrioSantos,defendants,CivilCaseNo.542M00.
[8]
Rollo,pp.5254.
[9]
Id.at6263.
[10]
Id.at7174.
[11]
Id.at6469.
[12]
Id.at8081.
[13]
Id.at82.
[14]
Id.at8990.
[15]
Id.at8384.
[16]
Id.at2223.
[17]
Id.at8587.

[18]
Rasdasv.Estenor,G.R.No.157605,December13,2005,477SCRA538,551.
[19]
EstateofGuillermodeJesusandElenaC.DeJesusv.CarmenCruz,andallpersonsclaimingrightunderher,SPCivilActionNo.65
for Unlawful Detainer with TRO/Injunction in MunicipalTrial Court of Calumpit, Bulacan and Civil Case No. 1013M99 for Unlawful
DetainerwithTRO/InjunctioninRegionalTrialCourtofMalolos,Branch14.
[20]
NationalElectrificationAdministration(NEA)v.Buenaventura,G.R.No.132453,February14,2008,545SCRA277,288289.
[21]
RULESOFCOURT,Rule17,Sec.3:Dismissalduetofaultofplaintiff.If,fornojustifiablecause,theplaintifffailstoappearonthe
dateofthepresentationofhisevidenceinchiefonthecomplaint,ortoprosecutehisactionforanunreasonablelengthoftime,ortocomply
withtheseRulesoranyorderofthecourt,thecomplaintmaybedismisseduponmotionofthedefendantoruponthecourt'sownmotion,
withoutprejudicetotherightofthedefendanttoprosecutehiscounterclaiminthesameorinaseparateaction.Thisdismissalshallhavethe
effectofanadjudicationuponthemerits,unlessotherwisedeclaredbythecourt.
[22]
Olavev.Mistas,G.R.No.155193,November26,2004,444SCRA479,495.
[23]
Records,pp.99100.
[24]
Rollo,pp.138,140,142.
[25]
Supranote22.
[26]
RepublicofthePhilippinesv.Oleta,G.R.No.156606,August17,2007,530SCRA534,542.
[27]
CrystalShipping,Inc.v.Natividad,G.R.No.154798,October20,2005,473SCRA559,565566.
[28]
StrictObservanceofSessionHoursofTrialCourtsandEffectiveManagementofCasestoEnsuretheirSpeedyDisposition.
[29]
AdministrativeCircularNo.399dated15January1999.
[30]
1997RULESOFCIVILPROCEDURE,Rule18,Sec.1.