Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 260 views

    Civpro - Rule 17 & 36 - 1. Shimizu Philippines Contractors

    Uploaded by

    eunisflamme
    The Supreme Court granted the petition and ruled that the dismissal order from the lower court was void. The lower court's dismissal order did not provide any factual or legal basis to support dismissing the case for failure to prosecute as required. It was not evident from the record that the plaintiff was unwilling to pursue the case. The dismissal order did not conform with the rules requirement to write valid judgments and orders. There was a denial of due process because the parties were not given an explanation for the conclusions reached by the court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Civpro - Rule 17 & 36 - 1. Shimizu Philippines Contractors

    Uploaded by

    eunisflamme
    260 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court granted the petition and ruled that the dismissal order from the lower court was void. The lower court's dismissal order did not provide any factual or legal basis to support dismissing the case for failure to prosecute as required. It was not evident from the record that the plaintiff was unwilling to pursue the case. The dismissal order did not conform with the rules requirement to write valid judgments and orders. There was a denial of due process because the parties were not given an explanation for the conclusions reached by the court.

    Original Description:

    Case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court granted the petition and ruled that the dismissal order from the lower court was void. The lower court's dismissal order did not provide any factual or legal basis to support dismissing the case for failure to prosecute as required. It was not evident from the record that the plaintiff was unwilling to pursue the case. The dismissal order did not conform with the rules requirement to write valid judgments and orders. There was a denial of due process because the parties were not given an explanation for the conclusions reached by the court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    260 views2 pages

    Civpro - Rule 17 & 36 - 1. Shimizu Philippines Contractors

    Uploaded by

    eunisflamme
    The Supreme Court granted the petition and ruled that the dismissal order from the lower court was void. The lower court's dismissal order did not provide any factual or legal basis to support dismissing the case for failure to prosecute as required. It was not evident from the record that the plaintiff was unwilling to pursue the case. The dismissal order did not conform with the rules requirement to write valid judgments and orders. There was a denial of due process because the parties were not given an explanation for the conclusions reached by the court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SHIMIZU PHILIPPINES CONTRACTORS, INC.

    vs MAGSALIN
    G.R. No. 170026, June 20, 2012
    BRION, J.
    FACTS: Petitioner claims that Leticia Magsalin had breached their subcontract agreement for the
    supply, delivery, installation and finishing of the tiles in certain floors in petitioners condominium
    project. The agreement was terminated.
    Due to Magsalins refusal to return unliquidated advance payment and other monetary liabilities,
    petitioner sent a notice to respondent FGU Insurance demanding damages pursuant to the bonds
    the former had issued for the subcontract.
    Petitioner filed a complaint for actual damages for breach of contract against Magsalin and FGU.
    FGU was duly served with summons. With respect to Magsalin, despite efforts, their new
    addresses could not be determined.
    FGU filed a motion to dismiss but was denied. Likewise, MR was denied. FGU was obliged to file
    an answer.
    Petitioner filed a motion for leave to serve summons on respondent Magsalin by way of
    publication. Then, the petitioner filed its reply to FGU Insurances answer.
    FGU filed a motion for leave of court to file a third-party complaint. Baetiong, G. Garcia and C.
    Garcia were named as third-party defendants.
    FGU claims that the three had executed counter-guaranties over bonds it executed for the
    subcontract w/ Magsalin and, hence, should be held jointly and severally liable
    RTC admitted the third-party complaint and denied the motion to serve summons by publication
    on the ground that the action against respondent Magsalin was in personam.
    RTC issued a notice setting the case for hearing. FGU filed a motion to cancel the hearing on the
    ground that the third-party defendants had not yet filed their answer. The motion was granted.
    Of the three third-party defendants, only Baetiong filed an answer, the officers returns on the
    summons to the Garcias state that both could not be located at their given addresses. Petitioner
    was not served w/ Baetiongs answer.
    For failure of petitioner to prosecute, RTC dismissed the case. RTC denied the petitioners MR
    prompting the latter to elevate its case to the CA via a Rule 41 petition for review.
    CA dismissed the appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The appeal raised a pure question
    of law as it did not dispute the proceedings before the issuance of the December 16, 2003
    dismissal order.
    Petitioner thus filed the present petition for review on certiorari.
    Issues: W/N THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO PROSECUTE
    THE CASE
    W/N THE APPELLATE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL AS
    THE MATTERS THEREIN INVOLVE BOTH QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT.
    W/N IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE LOWER COURTS DISMISSAL OF THE CASE IS A CLEAR DENIAL OF
    DUE PROCESS.
    RULING: The petition is granted. The Dismissal Order is Void, the December 16,
    2003 dismissal order shows that it is an unqualified order and, as such, is deemed to be a
    dismissal with prejudice.
    Dismissals of actions for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute is authorized under Section 3, Rule 17
    of the Rules of Court. Dismissal with prejudice means dismissal on adjudication of merits.
    It is imperative that the dismissal order conform with Section 1, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court on
    the writing of valid judgments and final orders.
    (Section 1. Rendition of judgments and final orders. A judgment or final order determining the
    merits of the case shall be in writing personally and directly prepared by the judge, stating

    clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, signed by him, and filed with the
    clerk of the court.)
    The December 16, 2003 dismissal order clearly violates this rule for its failure to disclose how
    and why the petitioner failed to prosecute its complaint. A trial court should always specify the
    reasons for a complaints dismissal so that on appeal, the reviewing court can readily determine
    the prima facie justification for the dismissal
    There was a denial of due process. Elementary due process demands that the parties to a
    litigation be given information on how the case was decided, as well as an explanation of the
    factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court. Where the reasons are absent,
    a decision has absolutely nothing to support it and is thus a nullity.
    The appeal was properly filed under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court:
    In Olave vs. Mistas, among the critical factual questions was whether, based on the
    records, there had been factual basis for the dismissal of the subject complaint. This same
    question is particularly significant in the present case given that the order appealed does not
    even indicate the factual basis for the dismissal of the case.
    Due to the absence of any stated factual basis, and despite the admissions of the parties, the CA
    still had to delve into the records to check whether facts to justify the prejudicial dismissal even
    exist. Since the dismissal of the case appears to have been rendered motu proprio (as the
    December 16, 2003 dismissal order does not state if it was issued upon the respondents or the
    trial courts motion), the facts to be determined by the CA should include the grounds specified
    under Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court. A court could only issue a motu proprio dismissal
    pursuant to the grounds mentioned in this rule and for lack of jurisdiction over the subject
    matter. These grounds are matters of facts. Thus, given that the dismissal order does not
    disclose its factual basis, we are thus persuaded that the petitioner had properly filed its appeal
    from the dismissal order under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
    The dismissal of the case is not supported by the facts of the case:
    The following events were chronologically proximate to the dismissal of Civil Case No. 02-488: (a)
    the court admitted FGU Insurances third-party complaint; (b) the trial court cancelled hearing
    upon FGU Insurances motion; and (c) Baetiong filed his Answer to the third-party complaint but
    did not serve it upon the petitioner.
    None of these events square with the grounds specified by Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of
    Court for the motu proprio dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute.
    This does not satisfy the standards of non prosequitur. The fundamental test for non
    prosequitur is whether, under the circumstances, the plaintiff is chargeable with want of due
    diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude. There must be unwillingness on the
    part of the plaintiff to prosecute.
    In this case, the parties own narrations of facts demonstrate the petitioners willingness to
    prosecute its complaint. Indeed, neither respondents FGU Insurance nor Baetiong was able to
    point to any specific act committed by the petitioner to justify the dismissal of their case.
    While it is discretionary on the trial court to dismiss cases, dismissals of actions should be made
    with care. The sound discretion demands vigilance in duly recognizing the circumstances
    surrounding the case to the end that technicality shall not prevail over substantial justice.

    You might also like