G.R. No. 191874 - Roasters Philippines, Inc. vs. Gaviola

On April 9, 2003, respondents (Georgia Gaviola, Maria Leisa M. Gaviola, and their children Karla Helene, Kashmeer Georgia, and Klaire Marlei) filed a Complaint for Damages against Roasters Philippines, Inc. (doing business as Kenny Rogers Roasters) before the RTC of Las Piñas City.
The complaint arose from an incident where the family dined at the Duty-Free Branch of Kenny Rogers Roasters in Parañaque, after which they were hospitalized for “acute gastroenteritis and possible food poisoning.”

Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, alleging:

The RTC denied both the initial Motion to Dismiss and a subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner.
Petitioner then challenged the denial by filing a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals.

On March 14, 2005, the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s certiorari petition, which was later declared final and executory on July 20, 2005.
On April 26, 2007, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of respondents’ failure to prosecute, noting that respondents had not taken any action to revive the case since the Court of Appeals’ decision.
Respondents filed a Manifestation with a Motion to Set the Case for Pre-Trial, but the RTC denied petitioner’s motion and scheduled a pre-trial hearing for August 6, 2007.
Petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration of that order was also denied.
On November 12, 2007, the RTC referred the case to mediation.
Meanwhile, petitioner filed another petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, challenging both the denial of the Motion to Dismiss and petitioner’s motion to suspend proceedings; this petition was eventually denied on April 18, 2008.

On May 19, 2008, during the hearing for the presentation of evidence-in-chief, respondents failed to appear.
Relying on Section 3, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the RTC subsequently dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute.
Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the same day, explaining that respondent Maria Leisa had a prior scheduled engagement in the USA and that she was hospitalized due to profuse bleeding.
The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration on August 26, 2008.
Respondents, having changed counsel, filed a second motion for reconsideration along with supporting attachments (Affidavit of Merit, Certificate of Confinement, and a medical certification); this second motion was also denied on October 23, 2008.

Respondents filed a Notice of Appeal from the dismissal orders (May 19, August 26, and October 23, 2008), but the RTC denied the appeal on November 18, 2008, on the basis that those orders were interlocutory.
Subsequently, respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC for dismissing the case and denying the appeal.
On December 11, 2009, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s dismissal order, declaring it not interlocutory and directing that the case be reinstated.
Petitioner, however, raised multiple issues challenging both the finality of the RTC orders and the propriety of the respondents’ subsequent pleadings and motions.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the RTC’s dismissal orders and reinstating the case, particularly considering the well-settled rule on the finality of orders and judgments.
Whether the Court of Appeals manifestly erred in finding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion (amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction) in denying respondents’ second Motion for Reconsideration.
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in holding that the RTC erred in dismissing respondents’ Notice of Appeal, given its assertion regarding interlocutory order status.
Whether respondents should be bound by the actions of their former counsel, as opposed to the new counsel filing the second motion for reconsideration.
Whether the petition for certiorari should have been dismissed outright for non-compliance with the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping requirements.
Whether respondents had justifiable cause for their absence during the presentation of evidence-in-chief on May 19, 2008.
Whether there was a pattern of delay amounting to a failure to prosecute that justified the RTC’s dismissal order.