FACTS:
The instant Petition stemmed from a Complaint for Sum of Money and Damages by BPI against Dando before the RTC.Dando availed of a loan in the amount of P750,000.00 from Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC), BPI's predecessor in interest. Dando defaulted in the payment and despite repeated demands, Dando refused and/or failed to pay his just and valid obligation.
After Dando filed with the RTC his Answer with Counterclaim, BPI filed its Motion to Set Case for Pre-Trial. The RTC issued a Notice of Pre-Trial Conference, which directed the parties to submit their respective pre-trial briefs at least three days before the scheduled date of pre-trial.
Dando submitted his Pre-trial Brief on time while BPI filed its Pre-trial Breif with the RTC and furnished Dando with a copy thereof on the very day of the scheduled Pre-Trial Conference. Dando then moved for the dismmissal of the case on the ground of late filing of the Pre-trial Brief. RTC granted Dando’s Motion to Dismiss.
BPI filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the RTC which reconsidered and set aside it former order. Dando filed a Motion for Reconsideration
but was denied.
Dando sought recourse from the Court of Appeals by filing a Petition for Certiorari. CA held that BPI's excuse is too flimsy to justify the reversal of an earlier order dismissing the action. The BPI did not come forward with the most convincing reason for the relaxation of the rules, or has not shown any persuasive reason why it should be exempt from abiding by the rules. The RTC decision was ANNULLED and SET ASIDE by the CA.
Hence, this Petition.
ISSUE:
IS THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, IN ISSUING THE DECISION AND RESOLUTION, CORRECT WHEN IT STRICTLY APPLIED THE RULES OF PROCEDURE.
RULING:
It is a basic legal construction that where words of command such as “shall,” “must,” or “ought” are employed, they are generally and ordinarily regarded as mandatory. Thus, where, as in Rule 18, Sections 5 and 6 of the Rules of Court, the word “shall” is used, a mandatory duty is imposed, which the courts ought to enforce.
x x x However, it is equally true that litigation is not merely a game of technicalities. Law and jurisprudence grant to courts the prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to put an end to litigation speedily and the parties’ right to an opportunity to be heard. x x x This is in line with the time-honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. Technicality and procedural imperfection should, thus, not serve as basis of decisions. In that way, the ends of justice would be better served. For, indeed, the general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration of justice.
In Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, the Court restated the reasons that may provide justification for a court to suspend a strict adherence to procedural rules, such as: (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property; (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (c) the merits of the case; (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and (f) the fact that the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.
x x x The substantive right of BPI to recover a due and demandable obligation cannot be denied or diminished by a rule of procedure, more so, since Dando admits that he did avail himself of the credit line extended by FEBTC, the predecessor-in-interest of BPI, and disputes only the amount of his outstanding liability to BPI. To dismiss the case with prejudice and, thus, bar BPI from recovering the amount it had lent to Dando would be to unjustly enrich Dando at the expense of BPI.
x x x BPI did not manifest an evident pattern or scheme to delay the disposition of the case or a wanton failure to observe a mandatory requirement of the Rules. In fact, BPI, for the most part, exhibited diligence and reasonable dispatch in prosecuting its claim against Dando by immediately moving to set the case for Pre-Trial Conference after its receipt of Dando’s Answer to the Complaint; and in instantaneously filing a Motion for Reconsideration of the 10 October 2003 Order of the RTC dismissing the case.
Accordingly, the ends of justice and fairness would be best served if the parties are given the full opportunity to thresh out the real issues and litigate their claims in a full-blown trial. Besides, Dando would not be prejudiced should the RTC proceed with the hearing of the case, as he is not stripped of any affirmative defenses nor deprived of due process of law.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is GRANTED.
No comments:
Post a Comment