Anson and Cheng vs.

Pacific Banking Corporation

Facts: Petitioners Anson Trade Center Inc. (ATCI) and Anson Emporium Corporation
(AEC) are corporations 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: Wether or Not 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 non-appearance 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.