Case Digest (G.R. No. 175677)
Facts:
Spouses Azucena B. Corpuz and Renato S. Corpuz v. Citibank, N.A., G.R. Nos. 175677 and 177133, July 31, 2009, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Azucena Corpuz was a Citibank Mastercard and VISA cardholder. In early December 1998 she paid in full her monthly charges and made additional check payments to prepay portions of her credit lines shortly before an official trip to Europe. While in Italy on December 9, 1998, several merchants declined to honor her cards; Citibank later explained the checks had not yet cleared due to a three-working-day clearing period and the postings were updated only on December 10, 1998. Upon return, Azucena requested refund of incurred overseas expenses and eventually demanded cancellation of the cards; Citibank continued to send billing statements and later provided a written explanation after counsel threatened legal action.
On November 12, 1999 the spouses filed a complaint for damages against Citibank, N.A. in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 255, Las Piñas City. Citibank moved to dismiss for improper venue; the trial court denied that motion and denied the spouses’ motion to declare Citibank in default. Citibank filed an answer with a compulsory counterclaim. After numerous resets, the pre-trial was set for May 5, 2003; the spouses and their counsel failed to appear. On Citibank’s motion the RTC, by Order of May 5, 2003 (reiterated September 17, 2003), dismissed the spouses’ complaint for non-appearance and directed Citibank to present evidence ex parte on its counterclaim within 30 days from receipt of the order. The spouses’ motion for reconsideration was denied.
The spouses petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) via certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 80095) contesting dismissal of their complaint. While that petition was pending, Citibank sought deferment of its ex parte presentation; its motion was denied. Because Citibank failed to present evidence within the 30-day window, the trial court dismissed its counterclaim by Order of June 30, 2005. Citibank’s motion for reconsideration was denied and affirmed by the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 86401. Meanwhile, in CA-G.R. SP No. 80095 the CA (May 25, 2006) set aside the RTC’s September 17, 2003 Order allowing Citibank to present evidence ex parte but sustained the dismissal of the spouses’ complaint as a final judgment that should have been appealed; on partial reconsideration (Resolution, Nov. 30, 2006) the CA allowed Citibank to prosecute its counterclaim.
The spouses filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 175677) challenging the CA’s rulings; Citibank filed a separate petition (G.R. No. 177133) contesting the CA’s dismissal of its counterclaim. The Court consolidated the case...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the spouses’ resort to a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals the proper remedy to assail the RTC’s May 5/September 17, 2003 Order dismissing their complaint for failure to appear at pre-trial?
- Were the spouses’ reasons (counsel’s neglect and other explanations) sufficient to excuse their non-appearance at pre-trial and warrant reversal of the dismissal?
- Could Citibank still prosecute its compulsory counterclaim after the dismissal of the spouses’ complaint, and did the RTC’s September 17, 2003 Order allowing ex parte presentation of evidence on the counterclaim become ineffective because Citibank failed to present evidence within the prescribed 30-day ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)