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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 104 views

    Spouses Pascual Vs FCB

    Uploaded by

    Russell
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals properly dismissed the petitioners' case with prejudice due to their failure to attend the mandatory pre-trial conference or submit a pre-trial brief. The petitioners filed a petition for annulment of judgment in the Court of Appeals but did not comply with the pre-trial requirements under the Rules of Court. While litigation should not be a game of technicalities, procedures are important to ensure the orderly administration of justice. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was also filed out of time, rendering the resolution dismissing their case final and executory. The Supreme Court affirmed that a pre-trial judge cannot render judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment without a motion from the parties.

    Copyright:

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

    Spouses Pascual Vs FCB

    Uploaded by

    Russell
    104 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals properly dismissed the petitioners' case with prejudice due to their failure to attend the mandatory pre-trial conference or submit a pre-trial brief. The petitioners filed a petition for annulment of judgment in the Court of Appeals but did not comply with the pre-trial requirements under the Rules of Court. While litigation should not be a game of technicalities, procedures are important to ensure the orderly administration of justice. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was also filed out of time, rendering the resolution dismissing their case final and executory. The Supreme Court affirmed that a pre-trial judge cannot render judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment without a motion from the parties.

    Original Description:

    gbfn

    Original Title

    83. Spouses Pascual vs FCB

    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 ruled that the Court of Appeals properly dismissed the petitioners' case with prejudice due to their failure to attend the mandatory pre-trial conference or submit a pre-trial brief. The petitioners filed a petition for annulment of judgment in the Court of Appeals but did not comply with the pre-trial requirements under the Rules of Court. While litigation should not be a game of technicalities, procedures are important to ensure the orderly administration of justice. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was also filed out of time, rendering the resolution dismissing their case final and executory. The Supreme Court affirmed that a pre-trial judge cannot render judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment without a motion from the parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    104 views1 page

    Spouses Pascual Vs FCB

    Uploaded by

    Russell
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals properly dismissed the petitioners' case with prejudice due to their failure to attend the mandatory pre-trial conference or submit a pre-trial brief. The petitioners filed a petition for annulment of judgment in the Court of Appeals but did not comply with the pre-trial requirements under the Rules of Court. While litigation should not be a game of technicalities, procedures are important to ensure the orderly administration of justice. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was also filed out of time, rendering the resolution dismissing their case final and executory. The Supreme Court affirmed that a pre-trial judge cannot render judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment without a motion from the parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    SPS. PASCUAL v.

    FIRST CONSOLIDATED RURAL BANK - BOHOL


    G.R. No. 202597
    February 8, 2017

    Facts:
    Considering that a Petition for Annulment of Judgment is an original action before the Court of Appeals,
    pre-trial is mandatory, per Section 6 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, whereby the failure of the plaintiff to
    appear would mean dismissal of the action with prejudice. The filing of a pre-trial brief has the same import.
    The Supreme Court has invariably ruled that while "litigation is not a game of technicalities," it is equally
    important that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the procedure to insure an orderly and
    speedy administration of justice.

    On February 14, 2011, the petitioners filed a petition for annulment of judgment in the Court of Appeals
    (CA) in order to nullify and set aside the decision rendered in Special Proceedings Case No. 4577 by the
    Regional Trial Court in Butuan City (RTC) ordering the cancellation of their notice of lis pendens recorded
    in Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-42190 of the Register of Deeds of Butuan City. On November 16,
    2011, the CA promulgated the first assailed resolution dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment.

    Considering that a Petition for Annulment of Judgment is an original action before the Court of Appeals,
    pre-trial is mandatory, per Section 6 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, whereby the failure of the plaintiff to
    appear would mean dismissal of the action with prejudice. The filing of a pre-trial brief has the same import.
    The Supreme Court has invariably ruled that while "litigation is not a game of technicalities," it is equally
    important that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the procedure to insure an orderly and
    speedy administration of justice.
    Hence, this appeal by petition for review on certiorari.

    Issues:

    Whether or not the court erred in its decision of dismissing the action with prejudice due to petitioner’s
    failure to appear during the Preliminary Conference.

    Ruling:

    The petitioners received the assailed resolution of November 16, 2011 on November 24, 2011. The CA
    actually received the motion on December 12, 2011. Considering that Section 1 (d) of Rule III of the 2009
    Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals provided that motions sent through private messengerial services are
    deemed filed on the date of the CA's actual receipt of the same, the motion was already filed out of time by
    December 12, 2011. Needless to remind, the running of the period of appeal of the final resolution
    promulgated on November 16, 2011 was not stopped, rendering the assailed resolution final and executory
    by operation of law.14

    To be clear, the rule only spells out that unless the motion for such judgment has earlier been filed the pre-
    trial may be the occasion in which the court considers the propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings
    or summary judgment. If no such motion was earlier filed, the pre-trial judge may then indicate to the proper
    party to initiate the rendition of such judgment by filing the necessary motion. Indeed, such motion is
    required by either Rule 34 (Judgment on the Pleadings) or Rule 35 (Summary Judgment) of the Rules of
    Court. The pre-trial judge cannot motu proprio render the judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment.
    In the case of the motion for summary judgment, the adverse party is entitled to counter the motion.

    You might also like