CASE 2016-0007: SYSTEMS AND PLAN INTEGRATOR AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ENGR. JULIETA CUNANAN, PETITIONER, – VERSUS – MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF MURCIA (G.R. NO. 217121, 16 MARCH 2016, REYES J.) (SUBJECT/S: EFFECT OF COUNSEL’S NEGLIGENCE ON THE CASE; DISMISSAL OF CASE DUE TO LACK OF INTEREST TO PROSECUTE) (BRIEF TITLE: SPDC VS. MUN OF MURCIA)
DISPOSITIVE:
“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is DENIED. The Order dated July 23, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 220, in Civil Case No. Q-11-68595 is however MODIFIED to the extent that the dismissal of the complaint is hereby declared to be without prejudice. Kapunan Lotilla Garcia and Castillo Law Offices is directed to SHOW CAUSE within ten (10) days from notice why it should not be disciplinarily dealt with for acts and omissions ascribed to it by its client, Systems and Plan Integrator and Development Corporation.
SO ORDERED.”
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
IS DISMISSAL OF A CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE A JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS.
YES. PER SECTION 3, RULE 17 OF THE RULES OF COURT.
“In Young v. Spouses Sy,18 the Court is emphatic that:
[T]he RTC orders dismissing the case for failure to prosecute are final orders, because such orders of dismissal operate as a judgment on the merits. This principle is now an express provision in Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court’s own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court. x x x “
WHAT IS THE REMEDY FOR DISMISSAL DUE TO FAILURE TO PROSECUTE?
APPEAL NOT CERTIORARI.
“It is firmly established, and with very few exceptions, that the remedy against such final order is appeal and not certiorari.
The general rule is that a writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to the aggrieved party. x x x.19 (Citations omitted, italics and emphasis in the original and underscoring ours)
Further, Section 5(f), Rule 56 of the Rules of Court clearly provides that an appeal may be dismissed motu proprio or upon motion if a party resorts to an erroneous mode thereof.
Prescinding from the above, the CA cannot be faulted for dismissing SPIDC’s petition for certiorari on account of its procedural flaw. Besides, even if the Court were to exercise leniency, consider SPIDC’s motion for reconsideration belatedly filed before the RTC, and let the petition for certiorari be treated as an ordinary appeal by the CA, it would still be susceptible to dismissal.”
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF COUNSEL’S NEGLIGENCE ON CLIENT?
IT BINDS THE CLIENT.
“As a general rule, the counsel’s negligence binds the client, and no compelling reason exists for the Court to exempt the petitioner from its application.”
IS THERE AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE THAT COUNSEL’S NEGLIGENCE BINDS THE CLIENT?
YES, WHEN THE CLIENT CAN PROVE THAT HE IS ENTIRELY FAULTLESS.
“In Philhouse Development Corporation v. Consolidated Orix Leasing and Finance Corporation,20 the Court declared that:
The dereliction of duty by counsel affects the client. While, exceptionally, the client may be excused from the failure of counsel, the factual and case settings in this instance, however, would not warrant such an exception; indeed, petitioners themselves may not be said to be entirely faultless.
The complaint for a sum of money and damages was instituted several years back. Petitioners were thrice declared in default. x x x After an adverse decision by the trial court, petitioners’ counsel failed to file a timely notice of appeal. The petition for relief, subsequently filed, was correctly dismissed by the trial court for lack of merit. The appeal to the [CA] was itself dismissed for failure to file an appellant’s brief. Petitioners could not have failed to notice the succession of blunders committed by their counsel, yet they took no precautionary measures such as by forthwith seeking the help of another counsel. No prudent party would leave the fate of his case completely to his lawyer. It should be the duty of the client to be in touch with his counsel so as to be constantly posted about the case.
Petitioners have not been denied their day in court. It is basic that as long as a party is given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he would have no reason to complain, for it is this opportunity to be heard that makes up the essence of due process. [W]here opportunity to be heard, either through oral argument or through pleadings, is accorded, there can be no denial of procedural due process. If it were otherwise, “all that a defeated party would have to do to salvage his case,” observed the Court in one case, would be to “claim neglect or mistake on the part of his counsel as a ground for reversing the adverse judgment,” and there would then be “no end to litigation x x x as every shortcoming of counsel could be the subject of challenge by his client through another counsel who, if he (were) also found wanting, (could) x x x be disowned by the same client through another counsel, and so on ad infinitum, thereby rendering court proceedings indefinite x x x.”21 (Citations omitted, italics in the original and underscoring ours).”
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?
“In the case at bar, the controversy arose from SPIDC’s complaint for collection of a sum of money, which was dismissed by the RTC on July 23, 2012 due to failure to prosecute. A review of the incidents leading to the complaint’s dismissal by the RTC and SPIDC’s filing of the petition for certiorari before the CA is therefore essential.
On January 28, 2012, the RTC issued an Order directing SPIDC to show cause why the latter’s complaint should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. On March 6, 2012, the RTC received SPIDC’s compliance through which the law office explained that it was not furnished with notices regarding the proceedings. The law office undertook to examine the records of the case for it to proceed. However, despite the lapse of several months, the law office still failed to examine the records. Consequently, the RTC issued the Order dated July 23, 2012 dismissing the case. A copy of the said order was likewise sent to and was received by SPIDC itself on August 29, 2012. On November 13, 2012, SPIDC’s new counsel, Atty. Mirandilla, belatedly filed before the RTC a Motion for Reconsideration against the Order dated July 23, 2012. The RTC denied the motion through the Order issued on October 16, 2013.22
It appears from the records that SPIDC’s complaint was dismissed on account of the law office’s negligence.23 Philhouse Development24 instructs that as a general rule, the dereliction of duty by the counsel affects the client. As an exception thereto, the client may be excused from the counsel’s failure only if the former can prove to have been entirely faultless.25”
WAS PETITIONER SPIDC FAULTLESS?
NO, BECAUSE SPIDC LEFT THE FATE OF ITS CASE TO THE HANDS OF THE LAW OFFICE.
“No prudent party would leave the fate of his case completely to his lawyer. It should be the duty of the client to be in touch with his counsel so as to be constantly posted about the case.”
………
“In the instant petition, the law office’s lackadaisical efforts in prosecuting the complaint should have prompted SPIDC to take the precautionary measures of being constantly updated about the proceedings and promptly engaging the services of another lawyer. Instead, SPIDC left the fate of its case to the hands of the law office. SPIDC was not entirely blameless; hence, the Court finds no compelling reason to exempt the instant case from the application of the rule regarding the binding effect upon the client of counsel’s negligence.”
HOW THEN CAN SPIDC GET JUSTICE?
THE SUPREME COURT SAID THE DISMISSAL MUST BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN ORDER TO BE IN ACCORD WITH JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
“The case is dismissed sans prejudice.
The Court, however, notes that SPIDC’s complaint for collection of a sum of money was lodged against the respondent relative to goods or services, which were already delivered or rendered. The Court thus finds it more in accord with justice and equity that the dismissal of the case be without prejudice.”
ARE SPDIC’S LAWYERS LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE?
PROOFS ARE INCONCLUSIVE.
“Proofs are inconclusive to determine whether or not the law office had indeed been negligent.
Anent the law office’s negligent acts or omissions, the records are insufficient for the Court to be able to conclusively determine the truth of SPIDC’s allegations.”
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 