Case Digest (G.R. No. 170232)
Facts:
Vette Industrial Sales Co., Inc. v. Sui Soan S. Cheng, G.R. Nos. 170232 and 170301, December 05, 2006, Supreme Court First Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court. The petitions for review on certiorari assail the Court of Appeals Decision dated September 22, 2005 and its Resolution of October 27, 2005 in CA‑G.R. SP No. 88863.Petitioner Sui Soan S. Cheng (Sui) filed Civil Case No. 03‑105691 for specific performance and damages against Vette Industrial Sales Co., Inc. and several individuals (collectively, petitioners). Sui alleged that on October 24, 2001 he executed a Deed of Assignment transferring 40,000 shares and that the company acknowledged indebtedness to him by a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA); postdated checks were issued but later dishonored and insurance proceeds and other sums were not remitted to him.
Petitioners countered that Sui sold his shares for P1 per share, that the MOA lacked board authorization and consideration, and that Kenneth Tan executed the MOA under threats; they asserted a compulsory counterclaim. The case proceeded to pre‑trial; Sui filed a Motion to Set Pre‑trial and later a Manifestation and Motion for Reconsideration after the trial court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for counsel’s nonappearance at the pre‑trial and set hearing for reception of evidence on June 22, 2004.
In an Order dated December 16, 2004 the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 173, granted Sui’s motion for reconsideration and set aside its dismissal in the interest of substantial justice, citing Ace Navigation Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of that RTC order was denied. They then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals which granted relief: the CA vacated and set aside the RTC orders, dismissed the complaint (without prejudice but allowing petitioners to present their counterclaim), and found dismissal proper because counsel and Sui did not adequately explain nonappearance or show written...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err as a matter of law in finding that the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion when it granted Sui’s motion for reconsideration and set aside the dismissal of the complaint?
- Was the RTC’s reopening of the case — i.e., setting aside the dismissal in the interest of substantial justice because counsel was late and allegedly authorized to act — proper under Rule 18, Section 4 and the Court’s precedents (e.g., Ace Navigation)?
- Did the alleged procedural defects in service and notice of Sui’s motion for reconsideration (violations of Rules 15, Secs. 4–6) render the motio...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)