Case Digest (G.R. No. 167403)
Facts:
In Makati Insurance Co., Inc. v. Hon. Wilfredo D. Reyes et al. (G.R. No. 167403, August 6, 2008), petitioner Makati Insurance, subrogated to the rights of its assured, filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 36 (Civil Case No. 97-84952), against Rubills International, Inc., Tong Woon Shipping Pte. Ltd., and Asian Terminals, Inc. for the damage to a shipment of red beans and cattle meat colloid aboard the M/V “Cherry.” Petitioner alleged gross negligence and breach of contract by the common carriers and arrastre operator, claiming actual, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit. After numerous postponements of pre-trial by agreement and for lack of authority or failure of petitioner’s counsel to appear, Presiding Judge Reyes dismissed the case without prejudice on November 19, 2001 for failure to prosecute. Petitioner’s Verified Motion for Reconsideration was denied on June 17, 2002, and petitioner received notiCase Digest (G.R. No. 167403)
Facts:
- Parties and Subject Matter
- Petitioner Makati Insurance Co., Inc. (Makati Insurance) issued an insurance covering cargoes shipped under Bills of Lading dated August 1, 1996, consigned to Silver Allies Trading International.
- Respondents Rubills International, Inc. and Tong Woon Shipping Pte. Ltd. (collectively, Rubills) were common carriers; Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI) was the arrastre operator at Manila port.
- Circumstances and Complaint
- The vessel M/V “Cherry” docked at Pier 15, South Harbor, on August 11, 1996, and completed unloading on September 9, 1996 of 120 MT of red beans and 153 MT of cattle meat colloid.
- Inspection revealed 84 ton bags badly wet, torn and spilled. Petitioner’s insured paid P412,253.91 to the consignee and was subrogated to its rights.
- Makati Insurance lodged demands for compensation against Rubills and ATI, who refused payment, prompting the filing of Civil Case No. 97-84952 before RTC Manila, Branch 36, for damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.
- Pre-Trial and Dismissal
- From April 2000 to November 2001, the case underwent multiple pre-trial postponements by agreement or counsel’s absence.
- On November 19, 2001, petitioner’s counsel failed to appear for the third pre-trial call; RTC Presiding Judge Reyes dismissed the case without prejudice for petitioner’s failure to prosecute.
- Motions, Appeals and Lower Court Actions
- Petitioner filed a Verified Motion for Reconsideration on December 4, 2001 (denied June 17, 2002).
- Notice of Appeal was filed July 17, 2002—three days beyond the 15-day reglementary period. RTC dismissed the notice of appeal on October 2, 2002.
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, which denied relief in its Decision of August 12, 2004, and denied reconsideration on February 17, 2005.
Issues:
- Timeliness of Notice of Appeal
- Whether the Notice of Appeal filed on July 17, 2002 was within the 15-day period under Rule 41, Section 3, considering interruption by motion for reconsideration and the “fresh period rule.”
- Proper Remedy from Dismissal Without Prejudice
- Whether an appeal lies from an order dismissing an action without prejudice, or whether the proper remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)