Case Digest (G.R. No. 185758)
Facts:
Linda M. Chan Kent, represented by Rosita Manalang v. Dionesio C. Micarez, Spouses Alvaro E. Micarez & Paz Micarez, and the Registry of Deeds, Davao del Norte, G.R. No. 185758, March 09, 2011, the Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Linda M. Chan Kent (through her sister and authorized representative Rosita Micarez‑Manalang) filed a complaint for recovery of real property and annulment of title before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Panabo City, Branch 34 (Civil Case No. 13‑2007), alleging that she paid for a 328 sqm residential lot in 1982 and that title was registered in her parents’ names under an implied trust but was later clandestinely conveyed to her brother Dionesio Micarez and registered in his name in 2002. Petitioner is a naturalized U.S. citizen and permanent resident of the U.S.A.; the Micarez respondents are also permanent U.S. residents.
Summons were served by publication. The respondents executed special powers of attorney before the Philippine Consulate in Los Angeles authorizing counsel Atty. Richard C. Miguel to answer and to represent them; Atty. Miguel timely filed an answer denying material allegations. After pre‑trial, the RTC referred the case to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC). Mediator Esmeraldo O. Padao, Sr. issued a Mediator’s Report returning the case to the RTC allegedly due to the non‑appearance of the respondents at mediation; acting on that Report, the RTC on May 29, 2008 allowed petitioner to present evidence ex parte.
The mediator later filed a Manifestation (July 15, 2008) clarifying that it was actually petitioner’s counsel (Atty. Benjamin Utulle) who failed to appear on the March 1, 2008 mediation setting, and that Atty. Miguel’s signature had been inadvertently entered on the column for plaintiff’s counsel. On that basis the RTC, by Order dated July 17, 2008, corrected its May 29 order and dismissed Civil Case No. 13‑2007 for plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to appear at mediation. Petitioner moved for reconsideration; by Order dated November 2...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion by dismissing Civil Case No. 13‑2007 for petitioner’s failure to attend the mediation proceeding?
- Was dismissal an appropriate sanction under A.M. No. 01‑10‑5‑SC‑PHILJA and Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, considering the circumstances (attendance at prior settings, conduct of opposing couns...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)