GR No 168799-2008-Tabuada - v. - Ruiz20181008-5466-21kl34

THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 168799. June 27, 2008.]
EUHILDA C. TABUADA , petitioner, vs . HON. J. CEDRICK O. RUIZ, as

Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, Iloilo City,
ERLINDA CALALIMAN-LEDESMA and YOLANDA CALALIMAN-
TAGRIZA , respondent.
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.
Serve a copy of this Order to Atty. Rean Sy.
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
Petitioner, the administratrix of the estate, and private respondents separately

moved for the reconsideration of the March 2, 2005 Order arguing, among others, that
the termination of the case was premature, there being yet no payment of the debts
and distribution of the estate, and that they had already prepared all the necessary
papers for the amicable settlement. 7 Despite the said pleas for reconsideration, the
trial court remained rm in its position to terminate the proceedings; hence, in the
assailed May 20, 2005 Resolution, 8 it a rmed its earlier order. Dissatis ed, petitioner
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
scuttles to this Court via Rule 45. 9
The petition is granted.
While a compromise agreement or an amicable settlement is very strongly
encouraged, the failure to consummate one does not warrant any procedural sanction,
much less provide an authority for the court to jettison the case. 1 0 Sp. Proc. No. 5198
should not have been terminated or dismissed by the trial court on account of the mere
failure of the parties to submit the promised amicable settlement and/or the Motion for
Judgment Based On An Amicable Settlement. Given the non-contentious nature of
special proceedings 1 1 (which do not depend on the will of an actor, but on a state or
condition of things or persons not entirely within the control of the parties interested),
its dismissal should be ordered only in the extreme case where the termination of the
proceeding is the sole remedy consistent with equity and justice, but not as a penalty
for neglect of the parties therein. 1 2 cIADaC
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
Lastly, the Court notes that inconsiderate dismissals neither constitute a

panacea nor a solution to the congestion of court dockets. While they lend a deceptive
aura of e ciency to records of individual judges, they merely postpone the ultimate
reckoning between the parties. In the absence of clear lack of merit or intention to
delay, justice is better served by a brief continuance, trial on the merits, and nal
disposition of the cases before the court. 1 6
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review on certiorari is
GRANTED. The March 2, 2005 Order and the May 20, 2005 Resolution of the Regional
Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 39 in Sp. Proc. No. 5198 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The case is REMANDED to the court of origin for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, Chico-Nazario and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 57-58.

2. Id. at 70.
3. Id. at 56.
4. Id.
5. Sec. 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. HDCAaS
6. The pertinent portions of the March 2, 2005 Order reads:
xxx xxx xxx
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.
SO ORDERED. (Supra note 1).
7. Rollo, pp. 59-69.

8. Id. at 70.
9. Id. at 4-15.
10. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Magwin Marketing Corporation, 450 Phil. 720,
738 (2003), citing Goldloop Properties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 498, 506
(1992).
11. Section 3 (c), Rule 1 of the Rules of Court defines special proceeding as "a remedy by
which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact;" see Vda. de
Manalo v. Court of Appeals, 402 Phil. 152, 165 (2001).
12. Dayo v. Dayo, 95 Phil. 703, 707 (1954).
13. Supra note 5.
14. Rollo, p. 56.
15. Goldloop Properties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 10.
16. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Magwin Marketing Corporation, supra note
10, at 742-743.

GR No 168799-2008-Tabuada - v. - Ruiz20181008-5466-21kl34

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GR No 168799-2008-Tabuada - v. - Ruiz20181008-5466-21kl34

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 168799. June 27, 2008.]

EUHILDA C. TABUADA , petitioner, vs . HON. J. CEDRICK O. RUIZ, as

Serve a copy of this Order to Atty. Rean Sy.

Petitioner, the administratrix of the estate, and private respondents separately

Lastly, the Court notes that inconsiderate dismissals neither constitute a

1. Rollo, pp. 57-58.

6. The pertinent portions of the March 2, 2005 Order reads:

xxx xxx xxx

SO ORDERED. (Supra note 1).

7. Rollo, pp. 59-69.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like