Title
Spouses Pascual vs. 1st Consolidated Rural Bank , Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 202597
Decision Date
Feb 8, 2017
The Court affirmed the dismissal of a petition for annulment of judgment due to the petitioners' failure to appear at the scheduled preliminary conference, emphasizing the mandatory nature of pre-trial requirements in such cases.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 202597)

Facts:

  • The case involves Spouses Sergio C. Pascual and Emma Servillion Pascual (petitioners) against First Consolidated Rural Bank (Bohol), Inc., Robinsons Land Corporation, and Atty. Antonio P. Espinosa, Register of Deeds, Butuan City (respondents).
  • On February 14, 2011, the petitioners filed a petition for annulment of judgment in the Court of Appeals (CA) to nullify a decision rendered in Special Proceedings Case No. 4577 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Butuan City.
  • The RTC had ordered the cancellation of their notice of lis pendens recorded in Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-42190 of the Register of Deeds of Butuan City.
  • After responsive pleadings were filed, the CA scheduled a preliminary conference on October 4, 2011, and ordered the parties to file their respective pre-trial briefs.
  • Instead of complying, the petitioners filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Motion to Hold Pre-Trial in Abeyance.
  • The petitioners and their counsel did not appear at the scheduled preliminary conference.
  • Consequently, on November 16, 2011, the CA dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment due to their non-appearance and failure to file the pre-trial brief.
  • The petitioners' subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied by the CA, leading to this appeal by petition for review on certiorari.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  1. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's dismissal of the petition for annulment of judgment due to the petitioners' failure to appear at the preliminary conference and file a pre-trial brief.
  2. The Supreme Court ruled that the non-resolution of ...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court emphasized the mandatory nature of pre-trial requirements under the Rules of Court.
  • Sections 4 to 6 of Rule 18 mandate the appearance of parties and their counsel at the pre-trial, and failure to appear or file a pre-trial brief results in the dismissal of the action with prejudice.
  • The petitioners' filing of a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Motion to Hold Pre-Trial in Abeyance did not excuse their non-appearance or failure to file the pre-trial brief.
  • The Court clarified that while motions for summary judgmen...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.