Title
Spouses Paguirigan vs. Pilhino Sales Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 169177
Decision Date
Jun 30, 2006
A dispute over a bus transaction led to multiple civil case dismissals and appeals, with the Supreme Court ruling that the initial dismissal was without prejudice and that respondent's absence during pre-trial did not warrant case dismissal.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 232823)

Facts:

# Background of the Case

  • Petitioners are spouses Dan T. Paguirigan and Mary Jane Paguirigan, doing business under the name Danny Boy Liner and/or Dalmatian Lines.
  • Respondent is Pilhino Sales Corporation.
  • The dispute arose from an alleged transaction involving three buses.

# Civil Cases Filed

  • Civil Case No. MC98-214:
    • Filed by respondent Pilhino Sales Corporation against petitioners for sum of money.
    • Dismissed on March 26, 1999, by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 214, due to respondent's failure to submit a pre-trial brief and appear at the pre-trial conference despite proper notice.
    • On June 2, 2000, the court denied respondent's motion for reconsideration, stating the dismissal was final but without prejudice, allowing respondent to re-file the complaint.
  • Civil Case No. MC00-1260:
    • Respondent re-filed the complaint on September 19, 2000, before the RTC of Mandaluyong City, Branch 210.
    • Petitioners raised defenses of res judicata and lack of jurisdiction, but the court dismissed these arguments, ruling that the earlier dismissal was not on the merits.
    • Pre-trial was set for July 2, 2002.

# Procedural History

  • On January 29, 2003, the trial court reversed its June 6, 2002 Order, holding that the dismissal of Civil Case No. MC98-214 was with prejudice and an adjudication on the merits, thus dismissing Civil Case No. MC00-1260 on grounds of res judicata.
  • On November 18, 2003, the trial court reversed its January 29, 2003 Order, ruling that the dismissal of Civil Case No. MC98-214 was without prejudice and not an adjudication on the merits.
  • On December 16, 2003, during the pre-trial conference, respondent and counsel failed to appear, leading to the dismissal of Civil Case No. MC00-1260 for failure to prosecute.
  • Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which set aside the dismissal and directed further proceedings. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.

Issues:

  • Whether Branch 210 and the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to entertain Civil Case No. MC00-1260.
  • Whether respondent's absence during the pre-trial conference on December 16, 2003, warranted the dismissal of Civil Case No. MC00-1260 for failure to prosecute.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, ruling that the dismissal of Civil Case No. MC00-1260 was improper. The case was remanded for further proceedings to ensure a fair trial on the merits.

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.