G.R. No. 202597 - Spouses Pascual vs. 1st Consolidated Rural Bank , Inc.

On February 14, 2011, the petitioners, SPOUSES SERGIO C. PASCUAL AND EMMA SERVILLION PASCUAL, filed a petition for annulment of judgment in the Court of Appeals.
The petition sought to nullify the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Butuan City (Special Proceedings Case No. 4577) which ordered the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens recorded in Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-42190.

The Court of Appeals scheduled a preliminary conference on October 4, 2011, and directed the filing of pre-trial briefs by the parties as mandated by the Rules of Court.
Instead of filing the required pre-trial briefs, the petitioners submitted a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Motion to Hold Pre-Trial in Abeyance.
During the scheduled preliminary conference, the petitioners and their counsel failed to appear.
A substitute counsel made a special appearance on October 20, 2011, but was not accepted due to the absence of the necessary authorization documents, effectively rendering the petitioners absent.

On November 16, 2011, the CA promulgated a resolution dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment for failure to appear at the pre-trial and to file the necessary pre-trial brief.
The dismissal was grounded on the provisions of Rule 18 (Sections 4-6), Rule 47, and Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, which emphasize that nonappearance or failure to comply with pre-trial requirements may lead to dismissal with prejudice.
The petitioners later filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied on January 9, 2012 for being filed out of time, followed by a Respectful Motion for Reconsideration that was also denied on June 20, 2012.

The petitioners filed their motions (including the Motion for Summary Judgment) through private messengerial services, with the filing date determined by the actual receipt by the Court of Appeals.
The CA clarified that motions sent via private courier are deemed filed on the date of actual receipt, thereby rendering subsequent motions (such as the Motion for Reconsideration) untimely.
The issues of timeliness and proper method of filing were critical factors in the dismissal of the petition.

The petitioners contended that the CA erred in holding the pre-trial as the proper venue to resolve pending summary judgment motions, arguing that their motions should have been addressed prior to the pre-trial.
They further argued that Administrative Circular No. 3-99 and A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC altered the mandatory nature of the pre-trial.
The CA rejected these assertions, reaffirming that pre-trial appearance and briefing are mandatory for original actions and that summary judgment motions, although properly filed before pre-trial, cannot substitute for compliance with procedural requirements.

Whether the petitioners’ failure to appear at the mandatory pre-trial conference and to file the required pre-trial brief merits the dismissal of their case.

Analysis of the duty of appearance at pre-trial as provided under Sections 4 and 6 of Rule 18, and the corresponding dismissal provisions under Rule 50.
Consideration of the consequences of procedural noncompliance in an original action before the Court of Appeals.

Whether summary judgment motions, filed prior to the pre-trial, should be resolved before holding the pre-trial conference.

Examination of the interplay between the motion for summary judgment and the mandated pre-trial process.
Evaluation of the petitioners’ contention that pending motions should preclude a pre-trial hearing.

The effect of filing motions through private messengerial services on the timely submission of pleadings and motions.

Determination of the filing date based on actual receipt by the court as stipulated in the Internal Rules.

Whether the petitioners’ reliance on Administrative Circular No. 3-99 and A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC to modify the mandatory character of the pre-trial is tenable.

Analysis of the authority of these administrative issuances in relation to the Rules of Court and established precedents.