THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 187342, April 05, 2017
ROBERT C. MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. NOELS. BUEN, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
JARDELEZA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 seeking the reversal of the December 19, 2008 Decision2 and March 6, 2009 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 101620. The CA affirmed the November 20, 2007 Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC), Branch 14, which in tum nullified the May 5, 2006 Order5 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (MeTC), Branch 16. The MeTC dismissed the case filed by respondent Noel S. Buen (Buen) against petitioner Robert C. Martinez (Martinez) pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court.
On April 6, 2005, Buen filed in the MeTC an Action for Recovery of Personal Property against Martinez, docketed as Civil Case No. 180403-CV.6 Buen sought to recover a Toyota Tamaraw Revo with plate number WFG-276 (vehicle), claiming ownership over the same based on a certificate of registration under his name.7 He narrated that he organized a corporation named Fairdeal Chemical Industries, Inc. (Fairdeal) with Martinez and a certain Benjamin Gonzales. As the majority shareholder of Fairdeal, he allowed the company the use of his personal cars, among them, the vehicle. Buen averred that Martinez now claims that the vehicle was owned by Fairdeal and refuses to return its possession despite Buen's repeated demands.8
In his Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim,9 Martinez alleged that all the vehicles utilized by Fairdeal were purchased using corporate funds; only that Buen surreptitiously registered some of them under his name.10 By way of counterclaim, he asked for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.11
After Buen posted the required bond, the MeTC in an Order dated April 19, 2005 awarded the possession of the vehicle to Buen.12
During the pendency of the civil action, Martinez filed a Complaint for Qualified Theft against Buen in the RTC of Manila, Branch 19, docketed as Criminal Case No. 05-240813.13 A warrant of arrest was issued against Buen who, thereafter, went into hiding.14
Trial ensued in the action for recovery of personal property. On the scheduled date of hearing on March 28, 2006, Buen's counsel manifested in open court that Buen cannot attend his cross-examination and prayed that the case be archived.15 The MeTC ordered Buen's counsel to- formalize his motion and for Martinez to file his comment within 10 days from receipt thereof. Thus, Buen's counsel filed a formal Motion to Send Case to the Files of the Archives with Leave of Court16 (Motion to Archive) dated March 31, 2006 and set the same for hearing on April 11, 2006. Despite notice, Martinez failed to appear during the scheduled hearing. He also did not file a comment to the Motion to Archive as directed by the MeTC. Thus, on April 11, 2006, the MeTC, in open court, granted the Motion to Archive the case.17
Claiming that he had no knowledge of the Order granting temporary archiving of the case, Martinez, on April 21, 2006, filed a Comment/Opposition to the Motion to Remand the Case to the Archives18 (Comment/Opposition) and prayed that the motion filed by Buen's counsel be denied.
In an Order19 dated May 5, 2006 (MeTC Order of Dismissal), the MeTC treated Martinez' Comment/Opposition as a motion for reconsideration of the April 11, 2006 Order and dismissed the case pursuant to the provisions of Section 3,20 Rule 17 of the Rules of Court. On July 18, 2006, Buen filed a Motion to Set Aside Order (of Dismissal).21
In the meantime, Martinez filed a Motion to Quash the Writ of Seizure (Motion to Quash) earlier issued by the MeTC.22 In response, Buen filed an Opposition stating that the filing of the Motion to Quash is premature because the dismissal of the case is not yet final. He contended that Martinez failed to prove, by way of preponderance of evidence, his title and right of possession over the vehicle.23
On November 13, 2006, the MeTC acted favorably on Martinez' Motion to Quash and ordered Buen to return the vehicle to Martinez. It, however, amended its Order on November 27, 2006, directing Buen to surrender possession of the vehicle to the sheriff instead.24
On December 13, 2006, Buen filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Order directing Buen to return the vehicle to Martinez. Buen also informed the court that he has since been detained in the Manila City Jail and was now ready for cross-examination.25
The MeTC denied Buen's motion for reconsideration in its Order dated January 25, 2007.26 It declared that the Order dated November 13, 2006 had already attained finality and could no longer be disturbed.
Buen filed a Petition for Certiorari27 in the RTC, pleading that the MeTC acted in grave abuse of discretion when it treated Martinez' Comment/Opposition as a motion for reconsideration of the April 11, 2006 Order. He argued that the Comment/Opposition had already been rendered moot and academic by the April 11, 2006 Order granting the Motion to Archive.28 He also noted that the Comment/Opposition did not conform to the intents and purposes of a motion for reconsideration; that no filing fees were paid for the same; and that the Comment/Opposition did not even pray that it should be treated as a motion for reconsideration.29
In addition, Buen took issue with the MeTC's dismissal of the case pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court. He contended that unless a party's conduct is so negligent or dilatory, courts should consider ordering lesser sanctions other than the dismissal of the case. He maintained that the delay brought about by his non-availability to appear during the trial is "unexpected, unavoidable and justified" and beyond his will.30
In a Decision31 dated November 20, 2007 (RTC Decision), the RTC ruled in favor of Buen, the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, all premises considered, the Petition for Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Orders of the public respondent dated May 5, 2006 and January 25, 2007 are hereby NULLIFIED. All derivative Orders therefrom are likewise SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Branch Sheriff of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 16, Manila is hereby DIRECTED to take over and deliver immediately to the petitioner, the possession of the Toyota Tamaraw Revo with Plate No. WFG-276. Further, the MeTC of Manila, Branch 16, presided over by the public respondent, is hereby DIRECTED to set Civil Case No. 180403-CV for continuation of trial on the merits for the reception of the evidence-in-chief of the petitioner, and to hear said case until its termination.
With costs against the private respondent.
SO ORDERED.32 (Emphasis and italics in the original.)
It should be recalled that the MeTC received the [O]pposition before it granted the motion to archive. Thus, when the MeTC granted the motion to archive, it is deemed to have denied the [O]pposition filed by herein Petitioner [Martinez]. And having denied the [O]pposition, it can no longer treat the [O]pposition as a motion for reconsideration.x x x
By treating the [O]pposition as a motion for reconsideration, the MeTC in effect took up the cudgels for herein Petitioner. And by doing so, this resulted to the extreme prejudice which would call for the extra-ordinary remedy of certiorari.43 (Italics in the original.)
Indeed, the petitioner was correct in its observation that the subject Comment/Opposition should not have been treated as a Motion for Reconsideration. Firstly, under Section 3, Rule 15 of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, a motion shall state the relief sought to be obtained and the grounds upon which it is based. Certainly, the relief of prayer that was contained in the Comment/Opposition [was] different from the allegations in a Motion for Reconsideration. Secondly, Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the same Rule provide for a strict compliance thereof. Again, the Comment/Opposition failed to comply therewith, especially so, on the requirements of the notice of hearing, manner of service to the adverse party and proof of service thereof, which are all calculated to prevent surprise on the part of the adverse party.53
- Failure to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief;
- Failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time;
- Failure to comply with the Rules of Court; and
- Failure to comply with the order of the court.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES[] CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court, that the motion to send this instant case to the archives be denied. Defendant further prays that the testimony of the plaintiff be stricken off the record and the defendant be allowed to present his evidence on his counterclaim at the next scheduled hearing.57
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 13-40.
2Id. at 42-51. Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro with Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Fernanda Lampas Peralta, concurring.
3Id at 59-60.
4Id. at 103-108.
5Id. at 69. Penned by Presiding Judge Crispin B. Bravo.
6Id. at 44.
7Id. at 43; CA rollo, p. 71.
8 CA rollo, pp. 56-57.
9Id. at 36-41.
10Id. at 38.
11Id. at 39.
12Rollo, p. 77.
13Id. at 44.
14 CA rollo, p. 52.
15Rollo, p. 69.
16Id. at 62-65.
17Id. at 45.
18Id. at 66-68.
19Supra note 5.
20 Sec. 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff.- If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.
21Rollo, p. 79.
22Id. at 114.
23Id. at 78.
24Id. at 95.
25Id. at 70-71.
26Id. at 88.
27Id. at 74-86.
28Id. at 80.
29Id.
30Rollo, p. 81.
31Supra note 4.
32Rollo, p. 108.
33Id. at 106.
34Id. at 106-107.
35Id. at 107-108.
36Id. at 101-102.
37Id. at 110-136.
38Id. at 118.
39Id. at 125.
40Id. at 130-131.
41Id. at 131.
42Supra note 2.
43Rollo, pp. 49-50.
44Supra note 3.
45Rollo, p. 59.
46Id. at 184.
47Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement and Separation Benefits System v. Republic, G.R. No. 188956, March 20, 2013, 694 SCRA 118, 123-124, De Knecht v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108015, May 20, 1998, 290 SCRA 223, 239-240.
48 RULES OF COURT, Rule 65.
Sec. I. Petition for certiorari. - When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
49Heirs of Spouses Teofilo M. Reterta and Elisa Reterta v. Spouses Lorenzo Mores and Virginia Lopez, G.R. No. 159941, August 17, 2011, 655 SCRA 580, 594, citing Francisco Motors Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 117622-23, October 23, 2006, 505 SCRA 8, 20. Emphasis supplied.
50Tan v. Antazo, G.R. No. 187208, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 337, 342, citing Office of the Ombudsman v. Magno, G.R. No. 178923, November 27, 2008, 572 SCRA 272, 286-287, also citing Suliguin v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 166046, March 23, 2006, 485 SCRA 219, 233; Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Goimco, Sr., G.R. No. 135507, November 29, 2005,476 SCRA 361, 366; Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129368, August 25, 2003, 409 SCRA 455, 481; Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126462, November 12, 2002, 391 SCRA 370, 384; Microsoft Corporation v. Best Deal Computer Center Corporation, G.R. No. 148029, September 24, 2002, 389 SCRA 615, 619-620; Duero v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131282, January 4, 2002, 373 SCRA 11, 17; Cuison v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128540, April 15, 1998, 289 SCRA 159, 171.
51 Contrary to the CA Decision, we found that the Comment/Opposition reached the MeTC after the Motion to Archive was granted, not before. Regardless, we still find that there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the MeTC in treating the Comment/Oppposition as a motion for reconsideration ofthe April 11, 2006 Order.
52 G.R. No. 167141, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 211.
53Rollo, pp. 106-107.
54Resurreccion v. People, G.R. No. 192866, July 9, 2014, 729 SCRA 508, 527, citing Sembrano v. Ramirez, G.R. No. L-45447, September 28, 1988, 166 SCRA 30, 35-36; Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120739, July 20, 2000, 336 SCRA 258, 263; Tan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130314, September 22, 1998, 295 SCRA 755, 763, De la Peña v. De la Peña, G.R. No. 116693, July 5, 1996, 258 SCRA 298, 302; Manila Electric Company v. La Campana Food Products, Inc., G.R. No. 97535, August 4, 1995, 247 SCRA 77, 82; Republic Planters Bank v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-63805, August 31, 1984, 131 SCRA 631, 637; Firme v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-35858, August 21, 1979, 92 SCRA 713, 716.
55 Sec. 2. Contents of motion for new trial or reconsideration and notice thereof. – The motion shall be made in writing stating the ground or grounds therefor, a written notice of which shall be served by the movant on the adverse party.
A motion for new trial shall be proved in the manner provided for proof of motions. A motion for the cause mentioned in paragraph (a) of the preceding section shall be supported by affidavits of merits which may be rebutted by affidavits. A motion for the cause mentioned in paragraph (b) shall be supported by affidavits of the witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given, or by duly authenticated documents which are proposed to be introduced in evidence.
A motion for reconsideration shall point out specifically the findings or conclusions of the judgment or final order which are not supported by the evidence or which are contrary to law, making express reference to the testimonial or documentary evidence or to the provisions of law alleged to be contrary to such findings or conclusions. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
56Shimizu Philippines Contractors, Inc. v. Magsalin, G.R. No. 170026, June 20, 2012, 674 SCRA 65, 76-77, citing Heirs of Teofilo Gabatan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150206, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 70; Ang v. Associated Bank, G.R. No. 146511, September 5, 2007, 532 SCRA 244; and Mendoza v. Bautista, G.R. No. 43666, March 18, 2005, 453 SCRA 691.
57Rollo, p. 67.
58 G.R. No. 173559, January 7, 2013, 688 SCRA 22.
59Id. at 35.
60Id. at 36, citing Development Bank of the Philippines v. Teston, G.R. No. 174966, February 14, 2008, 545 SCRA 422, 429.
61Supra note 56.
62Id. at 76.
63 G.R. No. 161309, February 23, 2005, 452 SCRA 298.
64Id. at 311. See also Heirs of Spouses Teofilo M. Reterta and Elisa Reterta v. Spouses Lorenzo Mores and Virginia Lopez, supra note 49.