Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GR No 168799-2008-Tabuada - v. - Ruiz20181008-5466-21kl34
GR No 168799-2008-Tabuada - v. - Ruiz20181008-5466-21kl34
DECISION
NACHURA , J : p
In this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
petitioner assails the March 2, 2005 Order 1 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo
City, Branch 39 in Special Proceedings (Sp. Proc.) No. 5198 and the May 20, 2005
Resolution 2 of the trial court denying the motion for the reconsideration of the
challenged order.
The very simple issue raised for our resolution in this case surfaced when the
parties in Sp. Proc. No. 5198 (the proceedings for the settlement of the intestate estate
of the late Jose and Paciencia Calaliman) manifested to the RTC their desire to
amicably settle the case. In light of the said manifestation, the trial court issued the
following Order 3 on December 6, 2004:
In view of the strong manifestation of the parties herein and their
respective counsel that they will be able to raise (sic) an amicable settlement,
nally, on or before 25 December 2004, the Court will no longer be setting the
pending incidents for hearing as the parties and their counsel have assured this
Court that they are going to submit a "Motion for Judgment Based On An
Amicable Settlement" on or before 25 December 2004. cHAaCE
Atty. Honorato Sayno Jr., Atty. Gregorio Rubias and Atty. Raul Retiro are
notified in open court.
SO ORDERED. 4
The RTC, however, on March 2, 2005, invoking Section 3, 5 Rule 17, of the Rules of
Court, terminated the proceedings on account of the parties' failure to submit the
amicable settlement and to comply with the afore-quoted December 6, 2004 Order. The
trial court, in the challenged order of even date, likewise denied all the motions led by
the parties. 6 cTIESa
The third clause of Section 3, Rule 17, which authorizes the motu propio
dismissal of a case if the plaintiff fails to comply with the rules or any order of the
court, 1 3 cannot even be used to justify the convenient, though erroneous, termination
of the proceedings herein. An examination of the December 6, 2004 Order 1 4 readily
reveals that the trial court neither required the submission of the amicable settlement
or the aforesaid Motion for Judgment, nor warned the parties that should they fail to
submit the compromise within the given period, their case would be dismissed. 1 5
Hence, it cannot be categorized as an order requiring compliance to the extent that its
de ance becomes an affront to the court and the rules. And even if it were worded in
coercive language, the parties cannot be forced to comply, for, as aforesaid, they are
only strongly encouraged, but are not obligated, to consummate a compromise. An
order requiring submission of an amicable settlement does not nd support in our
jurisprudence and is premised on an erroneous interpretation and application of the law
and rules. HCEcaT
Footnotes
To date, however, the herein parties and/or their counsel have egregiously failed to abide
by the aforequoted (sic) Order of the Court to the monumental detriment of the Court's
avowed goal of rendering justice with dispatch. Ineluctably, with this actuation of the
parties and/or their counsel, the Court is of the gnawing impression that they have
completely lost interest in the prosecution of the motions extant and/or may have
already settled their differences extrajudicially which is, of course, salutary.
In view of this, and in line with the provisions of Section 3, Rule 17 of the Revised Rules
of Court, the pendant motions should now be disposed of by the Court with finality.
WHEREFORE, premises duly considered, the instant motions and all their corollary and
concomitant ramifications are all hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY and the proceedings in
re TERMINATED.