THIRD DIVISION

February 8, 2017

G.R. No. 202597

SPOUSES SERGIO C. PASCUAL and EMMA SERVILLION PASCUAL, Petitioners
vs.
FIRST CONSOLIDATED RURAL BANK (BOHOL), INC., ROBINSONS LAND CORPORATION and ATTY. ANTONIO P. ESPINOSA, Register of Deeds, Butuan City, Respondents

D E C I S I O N

BERSAMIN, J.:

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.1

After the responsive pleadings to the petition were filed, the CA scheduled the preliminary conference on October 4, 2011, and ordered the parties to file their respective pre-trial briefs.2 Instead of filing their pre-trial brief, the petitioners filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Motion to Hold Pre-Trial in Abeyance.3 At the scheduled preliminary conference, the petitioners and their counsel did not appear.4

On November 16, 2011, the CA promulgated the first assailed resolution dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment,5 stating:

Section 4 through 6 of Rule 18 of the Rules of Court provide, viz:

Sec. 4.
Appearance of parties. - It shall be the duty of the parties and their counsel to appear at the pre-trial. The non-appearance of a party may be excused only if a valid cause is shown therefor or if a representative shall appear in his behalf fully authorized in writing to enter into an amicable settlement, to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations or admission of facts and of documents.
Sec. 5. Effect of failure to appear.- The failure of the plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the next preceding section shall be cause for dismissal of the action. The dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court. A similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof.

Sec. 6. Pre-trial brief - x x x

Failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial.

Petitioners, instead of complying with our order, filed the twin motions, averring that it behooves us to rule first on their motions before pre-trial could be conducted, "especially with the incompatibility of a pending Motion for Summary Judgment vis-a-vis the conduct of pre-trial conference."

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.

In fact, contrary to petitioners' assertion, it is only at the pre-trial that the rules allow the courts to render judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment, as provided by Section 2 (g) of Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, viz:

Sec. 2. Nature and purpose. - The pre-trial is mandatory. The court shall consider:

x x xx

(g) The propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary judgment, or of dismissing the action should a valid ground therefor be found to exist.

Moreover, in an Order dated October 20, 2011, we noted petitioners and counsel's special appearance via a new counsel, but failed to accept the same as the latter was not armed with the appropriate documents to appear as such. Therefore, it was as if petitioners did not appear during the Preliminary Conference.

It is not for the petitioners to arrogate whether or not pre-trial may be suspended or dispensed with, or that their motions be resolved first, as the same are discretionary upon the court taking cognizance of the petition. Furthermore, their failure to furnish private respondent Robinsons Land Corporation a copy of their Motion for Reconsideration of our denial of their TRO and/or WPI, and to submit proof of service thereof to this court is tantamount to failure to obey lawful orders of the court.1âwphi1

This we cannot countenance. Strict compliance with the Rules is indispensable for the prevention of needless delays and the promotion of orderly and expeditious dispatch of judicial business. Hence, petitioners' failure to comply with our directives merits dismissal of their petition. We find support in the provision of Section 1 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, viz:

Sec. 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal.

x x xx

(h) Failure of the appellant to appear at the preliminary conference under Rule 48, or to comply with orders, circulars, or directives of the court without justifiable cause ...

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.6