SECOND DIVISION

Filipino descent who became a naturalized American citizen after marrying an

American national in 1981. She is now a permanent resident of the United States of
LINDA M. CHAN KENT, G.R. No. 185758 America (USA).
represented by ROSITA
MANALANG, Present:
Petitioner, In her complaint, petitioner claimed that the residential lot in Panabo City, which
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
she purchased in 1982, was clandestinely and fraudulently conveyed and transferred
VELASCO, JR.,*
- versus - PERALTA, by her parents, respondent spouses Alvaro and Paz Micarez (Spouses Micarez),in
ABAD, and favor of her youngest brother, respondent Dionesio Micarez (Dionesio), to her
MENDOZA, JJ.
prejudice and detriment. She alleged that sometime in 1982, she asked her parents to
DIONESIO C. MICAREZ, look for a residential lot somewhere in Poblacion Panabo where the Spouses Micarez
SPOUSES ALVARO E. MICAREZ
& PAZ MICAREZ, and THE would build their new home. Aware that there would be difficulty in registering a real
REGISTRY OF DEEDS, DAVAO property in her name, she being married to an American citizen, she arranged to pay
DEL NORTE, Promulgated:
for the purchase price of the residential lot and register it, in the meantime, in the
Respondents.
March 9, 2011 names of Spouses Micarez under an implied trust. The title thereto shall be transferred
in her name in due time.
x ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION Thus, on October 20, 1982, a deed of absolute sale was executed between

MENDOZA, J.: Spouses Micarez and the owner, Abundio Panganiban, for the 328 square meter
residential lot covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-25833. Petitioner
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the July 17, sent the money which was used for the payment of the lot. TCT No. T-25833 was
[1]
2008 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Panabo City, Branch 34 (RTC), dismissing cancelled upon the registration of the deed of sale before the Registry of Deeds of
the complaint for recovery of property filed by petitioner Linda M. Chan Davao del Norte. In lieu thereof, TCT No. T-38635 was issued in the names of
Kent (petitioner), docketed as Civil Case No. 13-2007, and its November 21, 2008, Spouses Micarez on January 31, 1983.
Order[2] denying her motion for reconsideration.
Sometime in 2005, she learned from Manalang that Spouses Micarez sold the

The Facts subject lot to Dionesio on November 22, 2001 and that consequently, TCT T-172286
was issued in her brothers name on January 21, 2002.
This petition draws its origin from a complaint for recovery of real property and
annulment of title filed by petitioner, through her younger sister and authorized
representative, Rosita Micarez-Manalang (Manalang), before the RTC. Petitioner is of
 At the end, petitioner prayed that she be declared as the true and real owner issued the assailed Order[9] dated July 17, 2008 dismissing Civil Case No. 13-2007.
of the subject lot; that TCT No. T-172286 be cancelled; and that a new one be issued The pertinent portion of said order reads:
[3]
in her name.
Being so, the Order dated May 29, 2008 is hereby corrected.
For plaintiffs and her counsels failure to appear during the mediation
Considering that all the respondents are now also permanent residents of the USA, proceeding, this instant case is hereby ordered DISMISSED.
summons was served upon them by publication per RTC Order [4] dated May 17, 2007.
SO ORDERED.
Meanwhile, the respondents executed two special powers of attorney [5] both dated
Petitioner, through her counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration [10] to set
August 3, 2007 before the Consulate General of the Philippines in Los Angeles,
aside the order of dismissal, invoking the relaxation of the rule on non-appearance in
California, U.S.A., authorizing their counsel, Atty. Richard C. Miguel (Atty. Miguel), to
the mediation proceedings in the interest of justice and equity. Petitioner urged the trial
file their answer in Civil Case No. 13-2007 and to represent them during the pre-trial
court not to dismiss the case based merely on technicalities contending that litigations
conference and all subsequent hearings with power to enter into a compromise
should as much as possible be decided on the merits. Resolving the motion in its
agreement. By virtue thereof, Atty. Miguel timely filed his principals answer denying
second assailed Order[11] dated November 21, 2008, the RTC ruled that it was not
the material allegations in the complaint.
proper for the petitioner to invoke liberality inasmuch as the dismissal of the civil action
was due to her own fault. The dispositive portion of said order reads:
After the parties had filed their respective pre-trial briefs, and the issues in the
case had been joined, the RTC explored the possibility of an amicable settlement WHEREFORE, there being no cogent reason to depart from our
earlier Order, this instant motion for reconsideration is hereby ordered
among the parties by ordering the referral of the case to the Philippine Mediation
DENIED.
Center (PMC). On March 1, 2008, Mediator Esmeraldo O. Padao, Sr. (Padao) issued SO ORDERED.[12]
a Mediators Report[6] and returned Civil Case No. 13-2007 to the RTC allegedly due
to the non-appearance of the respondents on the scheduled conferences before him.
The denial prompted the petitioner to file this petition directly with this Court
Acting on said Report, the RTC issued an order on May 29, 2009 allowing petitioner
claiming that the dismissal of the case was not in accordance with applicable law and
to present her evidence ex parte.[7]
jurisprudence.

Later, Padao clarified, through a Manifestation,[8] dated July 15, 2008, that it was
ISSUES
petitioner, represented by Atty. Benjamin Utulle (Atty. Utulle), who did not attend the
mediation proceedings set on March 1, 2008, and not Atty. Miguel, counsel for the 1. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT A
QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE CASE SIMPLY ON
respondents and their authorized representative. Padao explained that Atty. Miguel THE REASON THAT PLAINTIFF FAILED TO APPEAR DURING
inadvertently affixed his signature for attendance purposes on the column provided for THE MEDIATION PROCEEDING, ALTHOUGH PRESENT FOR
TWO (2) TIMES.
the plaintiffs counsel in the mediators report. In light of this development, the RTC
 2. IS THE EXCUSABLE AND EXPLAINED FAILURE TO ATTEND
settlement or of submission to alternative modes of resolution for the early settlement
THE MEDIATION PROCEEDING FOR TWO (2) TIMES OR
SETTINGS, OUT OF THE FOUR (4) SCHEDULED SETTINGS, BY of disputes so as to put an end to litigations. The provisions of A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-
THE PLAINTIFF A GROUND TO DISMISS THE CASE UNDER PHILJA pertinent to the case at bench are as follows:
THE SUPREME COURTS ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 20-
2002? 9. Personal appearance/Proper authorizations
The pivotal issue in this case is whether the RTC erred in dismissing Civil Case
Individual parties are encouraged to personally appear for
No. 13-2007 due to the failure of petitioners duly authorized representative, Manalang, mediation. In the event they cannot attend, their representatives must
and her counsel to attend the mediation proceedings under the provisions of A.M. No. be fully authorized to appear, negotiate and enter into a compromise
01-10-5-SC-PHILJA and 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure. by a Special Power of Attorney. A corporation shall, by board resolution,
fully authorize its representative to appear, negotiate and enter into a
compromise agreement.
Petitioner claims that the dismissal of the case was unjust because her
representative, Manalang, and her counsel, Atty. Etulle, did not deliberately snub the
mediation proceedings. In fact, Manalang and Atty. Etulle twice attended the mediation
conferences on January 19, 2008 and on February 9, 2008. On both occasions, 12. Sanctions
Manalang was present but was not made to sign the attendance sheet and was merely
Since mediation is part of Pre-Trial, the trial court shall impose
at the lobby waiting to be called by Atty. Etulle upon arrival of Atty. Miguel. Manalang the appropriate sanction including but not limited to censure,
and Atty. Etulle only left PMC at 11:00 oclock in the morning when Atty. Miguel had reprimand, contempt and such other sanctions as are provided under
the Rules of Court for failure to appear for pre-trial, in case any or both
not yet arrived.[13] of the parties absent himself/themselves, or for abusive conduct during
mediation proceedings. [Underscoring supplied]
Petitioner, however, admits that her representative and counsel indeed failed
to attend the last scheduled conference on March 1, 2008, when they had to attend To reiterate, A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA regards mediation as part of pre-
[14]
some urgent matters caused by the sudden increase in prices of commodities. trial where parties are encouraged to personally attend the proceedings. The personal
non-appearance, however, of a party may be excused only when the representative,
In the interest of justice, the Court grants the petition. who appears in his behalf, has been duly authorized to enter into possible amicable
settlement or to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution. To ensure the
A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA dated October 16, 2001, otherwise known as the
attendance of the parties, A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA specifically enumerates the
Second Revised Guidelines for the Implementation of Mediation Proceedings, was
sanctions that the court can impose upon a party who fails to appear in the
issued pursuant to par. (5), Section 5, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution mandating
proceedings which includes censure, reprimand, contempt, and even dismissal of the
this Court to promulgate rules providing for a simplified and inexpensive procedure for
action in relation to Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court.[15] The respective lawyers
the speedy disposition of cases. Also, Section 2(a), Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
of the parties may attend the proceedings and, if they do so, they are enjoined to
Procedure, as amended, requires the courts to consider the possibility of an amicable
cooperate with the mediator for the successful amicable settlement of disputes [16] so RTC impetuously deprived petitioner of the opportunity to recover the land which she
as to effectively reduce docket congestion. allegedly paid for.

Although the RTC has legal basis to order the dismissal of Civil Case No. 13-
2007, the Court finds this sanction too severe to be imposed on the petitioner where Unless the conduct of the party is so negligent, irresponsible, contumacious,
the records of the case is devoid of evidence of willful or flagrant disregard of the rules or dilatory as for non-appearance to provide substantial grounds for dismissal, the
on mediation proceedings. There is no clear demonstration that the absence of courts should consider lesser sanctions which would still achieve the desired end. The
petitioners representative during mediation proceedings on March 1, 2008 was Court has written inconsiderate dismissals, even if without prejudice, do not constitute
intended to perpetuate delay in the litigation of the case. Neither is it indicative of lack
a panacea nor a solution to the congestion of court dockets, while they lend a
of interest on the part of petitioner to enter into a possible amicable settlement of the
deceptive aura of efficiency to records of the individual judges, they merely postpone
case.
the ultimate reckoning between the parties. In the absence of clear lack of merit or

The Court notes that Manalang was not entirely at fault for the cancellation and intention to delay, justice is better served by a brief continuance, trial on the merits,

resettings of the conferences. Let it be underscored that respondents representative and final disposition of the cases before the court.[17]
and counsel, Atty. Miguel, came late during the January 19 and February 9,
2008conferences which resulted in their cancellation and the final resetting of the
It bears emphasis that the subject matter of the complaint is a valuable parcel
mediation proceedings to March 1, 2008. Considering the circumstances, it would be
of land measuring 328 square meters and that petitioner had allegedly spent a lot of
most unfair to penalize petitioner for the neglect of her lawyer.
money not only for the payment of the docket and other filing fees but also for the

Assuming arguendo that the trial court correctly construed the absence of extra-territorial service of the summons to the respondents who are now permanent

Manalang on March 1, 2008 as a deliberate refusal to comply with its Order or to be residents of the U.S.A. Certainly, petitioner stands to lose heavily on account of

dilatory, it cannot be said that the court was powerless and virtually without recourse. technicality. Even if the dismissal is without prejudice, the refiling of the case would

Indeed, there are other available remedies to the court a quo under A.M. No. 01-10-5- still be injurious to petitioner because she would have to pay again all the litigation

SC-PHILJA, apart from immediately ordering the dismissal of the case. If Manalangs expenses which she previously paid for. The Court should afford party-litigants the

absence upset the intention of the court a quo to promptly dispose the case, a mere amplest opportunity to enable them to have their cases justly determined, free from

censure or reprimand would have been sufficient for petitioners representative and her constraints of technicalities.[18] Technicalities should take a backseat against

counsel so as to be informed of the courts intolerance of tardiness and laxity in the substantive rights and should give way to the realities of the situation. Besides, the

observation of its order. By failing to do so and refusing to resuscitate the case, the petitioner has manifested her interest to pursue the case through the present petition.
At any rate, it has not been shown that a remand of the case for trial would cause
undue prejudice to respondents.

In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds it just and proper that petitioner be
allowed to present her cause of action during trial on the merits to obviate jeopardizing
substantive justice. Verily, the better and more prudent course of action in a judicial
proceeding is to hear both sides and decide the case on the merits instead of disposing
the case by technicalities. What should guide judicial action is the principle that a party-
litigant is to be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or
defense rather than for him to lose life, liberty or property on technicalities. [19] The ends
of justice and fairness would best be served if the issues involved in the case are
threshed out in a full-blown trial. Trial courts are reminded to exert efforts to resolve
the matters before them on the merits and to adjudge them accordingly to the
satisfaction of the parties, lest in hastening the proceedings, they further delay the
resolution of the cases.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Civil Case No. 13-2007 is

hereby REINSTATED and REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Panobo City,
Branch 34 for referral back to the Philippine Mediation Center for possible amicable
settlement or for other proceedings.

SO ORDERED.