Facts:
Wilhesmina Coquia, et al. filed, on behalf of two minor children, a civil action to recover damages for
food poisoning allegedly contracted on
March 7, 1952 after the minors ate
ice cream purchased from the restaurant of one of the defendants and allegedly manufactured by the other defendants. The action was instituted only on
March 12, 1955, more than three years after the cause of action accrued. The defendants denied liability, and after the issues were joined, the case was set for hearing on
May 17, 1955 at plaintiffs’ instance, but the actual trial did not proceed until
May 16 of the following month. Trial was interrupted when plaintiffs’ counsel,
Atty. Gualberto Cruz, after presenting
five witnesses, asked for a continuance, which the court granted, resetting the next hearing to
June 20. On that date, Atty. Cruz sought another postponement due to alleged illness, and the court granted the request, moving the hearing to
June 24. On
June 21, Atty. Cruz filed a motion to withdraw, citing illness and an alleged conflict of opinion between counsel and clients on how to handle the case; plaintiffs gave conformity, and on the same day they lodged a complaint with the city fiscal of Manila alleging violation of the
Foods and Drugs Act and, invoking
section 1(c) of Rule 107, petitioned the civil court to
suspend proceedings pending the final judgment in the criminal case. The petition was filed on
June 23 and set for hearing on
June 24, which was also the scheduled date for the continuation of the trial. In an order dated
June 24, the trial court denied the petition to suspend, holding that the cited rule refers to the
commencement of the criminal action in court rather than the mere filing of a complaint with the prosecuting officer. In the same order, the court approved Atty. Cruz’s withdrawal and dismissed plaintiffs’ action with costs because plaintiffs failed to appear at the continuation of the hearing. Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the appeal was certified to the Supreme Court on the ground that the amount involved exceeded
P50,000.00, arguing that the dismissal was erroneous.
Issues:
Whether the trial court erred in (a) denying plaintiffs’ petition to suspend the civil case under
section 1(c) of Rule 107 on the theory that the rule applies upon the mere filing of a criminal complaint with the prosecuting officer, and (b) dismissing plaintiffs’ civil action for failure to appear at the continuation of the hearing.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: