185 FAJ Construction v. Saulog (Mozo)

FAJ Construction v.
Saulog
G.R. No. 200759 – Mar. 25, 2015
Second Division | J. Del Castillo
Digest Author: Mozo, Miguel
Topic: Dismissal of Actions – Dismissal Due to the Fault of the Plaintiff

Case Summary:
Par. 1 – Facts
On June 15, 1999, petitioner FAJ Construction and Development Corporation and respondent Susan M. Saulog
entered into an Agreement (construction agreement) for the construction of a residential building in San
Lorenzo Village, Makati City for a contract price of P12,500,000.00. Payment to petitioner contractor shall be
on a progress billing basis, after inspection of the work by respondent.
Construction of the building commenced, and respondent made a corresponding total payment to petitioner in
the amount of P10,592,194.80. However, for the October 31 and November 6, 2000 progress billing statements
sent by petitioner in the total amount of P851,601.58, respondent refused to pay. After performing additional
work, petitioner made another request for payment, but respondent again refused to pay, prompting petitioner to
terminate the construction contract pursuant to Article 27 (b) of the Uniform General Conditions of Contract for
Private Construction (or Document 102) of the Construction Industry Authority of the Philippines, Department
of Trade and Industry.
Petitioner then sent demand letters to respondent on November 24, 2000 and September 28, 2001. In reply,
respondent claimed that petitioner's work was defective, and that it should instead be made liable thereon.
Petitioner thus filed with the RTC of Quezon City a civil case for collection of a sum of money with damages
against respondent.
Par. 2 - Case Trail - MTC/RTC/CA + arguments
After several opportunities for the presentation of its first witness, petitioner failed to proceed with trial. Its
counsel moved and asked for several postponements of trial, which the trial court granted despite respondent's
opposition. However, petitioner's counsel and witness failed to appear during the scheduled April 29, 2003
hearing, prompting the trial court, upon respondent's motion, to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.
Petitioner filed an unverified motion for reconsideration of the April 29, 2003 dismissal order, claiming that its
counsel was unable to attend the scheduled hearing because he suffered arthritis of the knee; however, the
motion was not accompanied by an affidavit or certification to the effect that the character of petitioner's
counsel's illness is such as to render his non-attendance excusable. Respondent opposed the motion. In a June
23, 2003 Order, the trial court granted petitioner's motion for reconsideration, thus recalling its April 29, 2003
dismissal order and setting the case for hearing on July 29, 2003 for the continuation of the presentation of
petitioner's evidence.
On July 29, 2003, both petitioner and its counsel again failed to appear. The trial court reset the hearing to
September 4, 2003, with a warning that further postponement will not be tolerated.
Petitioner once more moved for the postponement of the September 4, 2003 hearing, citing conflict of schedule.
Respondent opposed the motion, claiming that there was a pattern on petitioner's part to delay the disposition of
the case despite the trial court's admonition that no further postponement will be allowed.
On September 4, 2003, petitioner and counsel again failed to appear for the continuation of trial. The trial court,
noting respondent's manifestation, issued another Order dismissing the case for failure to prosecute, ordering
that the direct testimony of petitioner's witness be stricken off the record, and setting the case for hearing on
respondent's counterclaim.
Petitioner again filed a motion for reconsideration of the above September 4, 2003 dismissal order, which
respondent opposed, and which the trial court denied in a December 16, 2003 Order. Petitioner filed a second
motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied in a January 14, 2004 Order.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA questioning the above December 16, 2003 and January 14,
2004 Orders of the trial court, claiming that they were issued with grave abuse of discretion; that the trial court
erred in denying a postponement of trial, in striking off the testimony of its witness, and in declaring that
petitioner had the propensity to delay the case. The Petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 82239.
On September 30, 2004, the CA issued its Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 82239 dismissing the petition for
certiorari and affirming the trial court's action, declaring that petitioner adopted a pattern of delay and was
guilty of employing dilatory maneuvers, trifling with respondent's right to a speedy dispensation of justice,
abusing the patience of the trial court and wasting its time, squandering the people's money, and impeding the
administration of justice.
Par. 3 - Relevant Issue + SC Held
The issue is WoN the plaintiff’s complaint was properly dismissed due to failure to prosecute and the SC ruled
in the affirmative.
The CA held that the appellant's case was dismissed for failure to prosecute because of the numerous delays
caused by its counsel. Appellant cannot be excused from the actions of its counsel since it is likewise a settled
rule that mistake[s] of counsel binds the client. It is only in case of gross or palpable negligence of counsel
when courts must step in and accord relief to a client who suffered thereby.
The SC found nothing wrong in the judgment of the CA affirming the dismissal of petitioner's Complaint for
failure to prosecute. In fact, the Court found that the appellate court had not committed any reversible error.
This finding of lack of any reversible error is now final with the entry of judgment in G.R. No. 166336. Thus,
petitioner could no longer prove its case, other than to present controverting evidence on respondent's
counterclaim.
Doctrines/Laws Involved:
 The plaintiff’s complaint can be dismissed for failure to prosecute because of numerous delays caused
by counsel.

185 FAJ Construction v. Saulog (Mozo)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

185 FAJ Construction v. Saulog (Mozo)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FAJ Construction v.

Digest Author: Mozo, Miguel

Topic: Dismissal of Actions – Dismissal Due to the Fault of the Plaintiff

Par. 2 - Case Trail - MTC/RTC/CA + arguments

Par. 3 - Relevant Issue + SC Held

You might also like