G.R. No. 69866 - Aberca vs. Ver

On December 29, 1999, petitioner (Republic of the Philippines) filed a complaint for cancellation of free patent, original certificate of title, and reversion against respondent Ildefonso T. Oleta and the Register of Deeds of Rizal.
Respondent filed his answer on April 17, 2000.
The trial court, Branch 80, Morong, Rizal, on July 4, 2000, directed petitioner “to take the legal steps so that the case can be expedited.”

On January 11, 2001, the trial court issued an Order dismissing the complaint without prejudice due to petitioner’s failure to set the case for pre-trial.
Upon petitioner’s motion—and notwithstanding respondent’s opposition—the trial court reinstated the complaint on March 15, 2001.
A pre-trial conference was set for May 17, 2001; however, petitioner moved on May 8, 2001 to reset the pre-trial to June 14, 2001, which was granted by the trial court with a stern warning that non-appearance would lead to dismissal.
On the scheduled pre-trial on June 14, 2001, both petitioner and his counsel failed to appear; moreover, the required pre-trial brief was not filed, resulting in the dismissal of the complaint for failure to prosecute via an Order issued on the same day.

Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, explaining that his counsel arrived at 9:55 a.m. (instead of the expected 10:00 a.m.) due to the requested postponement and that the pre-trial brief, sent by registered mail on June 8, 2001, was not received on time.
In a July 24, 2001 Order, the trial court, in the interest of substantial justice, reinstated the complaint despite these procedural lapses.
Respondent filed an urgent motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the trial court on September 6, 2001.

On September 18, 2001, respondent petitioned for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial court for reinstating the complaint despite non-compliance with pre-trial rules.
On July 30, 2002, the Court of Appeals set aside the trial court’s orders dated July 24, 2001, and September 6, 2001.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied in its January 3, 2003 Resolution.
The present petition for review was subsequently filed with the Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeals’ decision.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the trial court orders—specifically the July 24, 2001 and September 6, 2001 Orders—which reinstated the complaint after it was dismissed for failure to prosecute due to non-appearance and failure to file the pre-trial brief.
Whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in reinstating the complaint despite petitioner’s failure to comply strictly with pre-trial requirements, particularly in light of the alleged absence of a written special power of attorney for petitioner’s counsel.