G.R. No. 202967 - Laurel vs. Vardeleon

Case Summary (G.R. No. 202967)

Factual Background

Petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of possession and ownership and/or quieting of title over a 20,306-square meter island in Caticlan, Malay, Aklan. Respondent denied the material allegations, asserted that he purchased the island on April 9, 1973 from Avelina Casimero, and pleaded laches against petitioner. The parties proceeded to a pre-trial conference which produced a pre-trial order setting three dates for petitioner to present her evidence: September 7, 2005, October 12, 2005, and November 23, 2005.

Pre-trial and Motions

Following the pre-trial order, respondent moved to correct the pre-trial order on August 1, 2005, alleging petitioner admitted knowledge of respondent’s possession since 1975; petitioner opposed that motion. The trial court denied respondent’s motion to correct the pre-trial order on August 19, 2005. Petitioner’s counsel moved on September 2, 2005 to reset the September 7 hearing to October 12 or any available date; the court granted the motion on September 7, 2005 provided petitioner defrayed respondent counsel’s transportation expenses and appearance fee. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration of those orders, and the trial court did not promptly resolve all pending motions.

October 12, 2005 Hearing and Dismissal

On October 12, 2005 petitioner appeared with substitute counsel and her first witness. Petitioner orally moved in open court for a postponement of trial on the ground that pending motions needed resolution and substitute counsel had not yet conferred with the witness because petitioner’s original counsel was absent. The trial court denied the oral motion to postpone, denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the September 7, 2005 Order regarding expenses, denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration of the August 19, 2005 Order, and dismissed Civil Case No. 7249 for failure to prosecute pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Post-dismissal Proceedings in the Trial Court

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on November 9, 2005. The trial court denied the motion in an Order dated January 31, 2006. The court explained that petitioner failed to present evidence on two scheduled settings, that the September 7 motion to postpone was untimely, and that the court had already accommodated petitioner by rescheduling the hearing to October 12, 2005; thus the dismissal was affirmed by the trial court.

Court of Appeals Decision

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its October 13, 2011 Decision, the CA affirmed the dismissal. The CA held that under Section 3, Rule 17, a complaint may be dismissed where the plaintiff, for no justifiable cause, fails to appear to present evidence-in-chief or to prosecute an action for an unreasonable length of time, that a plaintiff present but not ready to proceed evidenced failure to prosecute, and that petitioner was duly notified of the October 12, 2005 hearing and failed to show due diligence or file the affidavits required under Rule 30 when seeking a postponement for absence of evidence.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioner urged that both the trial court and the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing her complaint for alleged failure to prosecute despite active participation in proceedings and despite unresolved motions affecting trial. Petitioner sought reinstatement of Civil Case No. 7249 and asked that the Court supervise the exercise of judicial discretion in the matter.

Petitioner's Contentions Before the Supreme Court

Petitioner maintained that she, her counsel, and a witness were present on October 12, 2005 but honestly believed trial could not proceed because two pending motions directly affecting trial remained unresolved: respondent’s motion for reconsideration of the denial to correct the pre-trial order and petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the September 7, 2005 Order requiring her to defray respondent’s counsel’s expenses. Petitioner relied on the pre-trial agreement that she had three dates to present evidence, insisted she had a meritorious case, and argued that dismissal for failure to prosecute should be exercised with caution so that technicality would not override substantial justice.

Respondent's Contentions Before the Supreme Court

Respondent argued that the CA correctly affirmed dismissal. He contended that petitioner’s insistence that pending motions needed resolution was specious and evidenced lack of interest in prosecuting the case. Respondent asserted that substitute counsel could have been prepared to proceed on October 12, 2005, that petitioner exhibited complacency, and that he was entitled to a speedy resolution of his counterclaims and defence.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition. It held that the trial court erred in dismissing Civil Case No. 7249 and that the Court of Appeals should not have affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the CA Decision of October 13, 2011 and the CA Resolution of June 20, 2012, reinstated Civil Case No. 7249, and ordered the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Kalibo, Aklan to forthwith set the case for reception of petitioner’s evidence.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court applied the controlling standard for dismissal for non prosequitur: whether the plaintiff was chargeable with want of due diligence and unwillingness to prosecute. The Court reiterated jurisprudence that dismissal is a discretionary power to

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 202967)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioner Alicia Y. Laurel, substituted by her sole heir and legal representative Juan Miguel Y. Laurel, filed a complaint for recovery of possession and ownership and/or quieting of title over a 20,306-square meter island in Caticlan, Malay, Aklan, docketed as Civil Case No. 7249 before Branch 6 of the Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan.
Respondent Ferdinand M. Vardeleon denied the complaint, asserted a 1973 purchase from Avelina Casimero, and pleaded laches against the petitioner.
The trial court issued a July 6, 2005 Pre-Trial Order scheduling three dates for the presentation of the petitioner's evidence.
The trial court dismissed Civil Case No. 7249 on October 12, 2005 for failure to prosecute under Section 3, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on January 31, 2006.
The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s appeal in an October 13, 2011 Decision and denied reconsideration in a June 20, 2012 Resolution.
Petitioner filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking reversal of the CA Decision and reinstatement of Civil Case No. 7249.

Key Factual Allegations

Petitioner alleged ownership and sought recovery and quieting of title over the subject island.
Respondent claimed ownership by purchase on April 9, 1973 from Avelina Casimero and alleged that petitioner slept on her rights.
The contested island’s area was alleged to be 20,306 square meters.
The parties agreed at pre-trial that the petitioner would present her evidence on three separate dates, namely September 7, 2005, October 12, 2005, and November 23, 2005.

Pretrial and Trial Events

Respondent moved on August 1, 2005 to correct the Pre-Trial Order to reflect an alleged admission by the petitioner, and the trial court denied that motion in an August 19, 2005 Order.
Petitioner moved on September 2, 2005 to reset the September 7, 2005 hearing to October 12, 2005, and the trial court granted the motion on September 7, 2005 conditioning it on petitioner’s payment of respondent’s counsel’s transportation and appearance fees.
On October 12, 2005, petitioner appeared with a substitute counsel and a first witness and orally moved to postpone the trial because the principal counsel who previously conferred with the witness was absent and pending motions allegedly affected the conduct of trial.
The trial court denied the oral motion to postpone, denied the pending motions for reconsideration, and dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute under Section 3, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on November 9, 2005 which the trial court denied on January 31, 2006.

Issues Presented

Whether the dismissal of Petitioner’s complaint for failure to prosecute was proper despite the existence of an agreed schedule of three settings and pending unresolved motions arising from pre-trial.
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion by affirming the trial court’s dismissal.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Petitioner maintained that the trial could not properly commence on October 12, 2005 because of pending motions relating to the Pre-Trial Order that had direct bearing on the course of trial.
Petitioner asserted that she had one remaining agreed hearing on November 23, 2005 and therefore should have been given the opportunity to present her evidence on that date.
Petitioner argued that agreements embodied in the Pre-Trial Order controlled the course of trial and should not be disturbed absent manifest injustice.
Petitioner claimed that her case was meritorious b