Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 196 views

    9 HERMOSA Case Digest Batch 3.pre Trial

    Uploaded by

    Daryll Generyn
    1) Respondent BDO extended credit to petitioner Eloisa Merchandising which was secured by real estate, then filed for extrajudicial foreclosure when Eloisa defaulted. Eloisa filed a case to annul the real estate mortgage. 2) The trial court dismissed the case twice when Eloisa failed to appear for pre-trial conferences despite notice. It dismissed a third time due to Eloisa's inaction over an unreasonable length of time. The CA affirmed. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the dismissal was proper as the case had been at the pre-trial stage for over two years without Eloisa showing diligent prosecution or special circumstances for the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    9 HERMOSA Case Digest Batch 3.pre Trial

    Uploaded by

    Daryll Generyn
    196 views2 pages
    1) Respondent BDO extended credit to petitioner Eloisa Merchandising which was secured by real estate, then filed for extrajudicial foreclosure when Eloisa defaulted. Eloisa filed a case to annul the real estate mortgage. 2) The trial court dismissed the case twice when Eloisa failed to appear for pre-trial conferences despite notice. It dismissed a third time due to Eloisa's inaction over an unreasonable length of time. The CA affirmed. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the dismissal was proper as the case had been at the pre-trial stage for over two years without Eloisa showing diligent prosecution or special circumstances for the

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    9 HERMOSA Case Digest Batch 3.Pre Trial

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Respondent BDO extended credit to petitioner Eloisa Merchandising which was secured by real estate, then filed for extrajudicial foreclosure when Eloisa defaulted. Eloisa filed a case to annul the real estate mortgage. 2) The trial court dismissed the case twice when Eloisa failed to appear for pre-trial conferences despite notice. It dismissed a third time due to Eloisa's inaction over an unreasonable length of time. The CA affirmed. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the dismissal was proper as the case had been at the pre-trial stage for over two years without Eloisa showing diligent prosecution or special circumstances for the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    196 views2 pages

    9 HERMOSA Case Digest Batch 3.pre Trial

    Uploaded by

    Daryll Generyn
    1) Respondent BDO extended credit to petitioner Eloisa Merchandising which was secured by real estate, then filed for extrajudicial foreclosure when Eloisa defaulted. Eloisa filed a case to annul the real estate mortgage. 2) The trial court dismissed the case twice when Eloisa failed to appear for pre-trial conferences despite notice. It dismissed a third time due to Eloisa's inaction over an unreasonable length of time. The CA affirmed. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the dismissal was proper as the case had been at the pre-trial stage for over two years without Eloisa showing diligent prosecution or special circumstances for the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ELOISA MERCHANDISING, G.R. No.

    192716
    INC. and TREBEL
    INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
    Petitioners,
    - versus -
    BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL June 13, 2012
    BANK and ENGRACIO M.
    ESCASINAS, JR., in his capacity
    as Ex-Officio Sheriff of the RTC
    of Makati City,
    Respondents.

    VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

    FACTS:

    Respondent BDO extended a credit accommodation to petitioner Eloisa


    Merchandising, Inc. (EMI)and it was secured by a real estate mortgage
    (REM) over its properties. BDO filed an application for extrajudicial
    foreclosure before the Office of the Ex-Officio Sheriff, RTC. A notice was
    issued setting the auction sale of the mortgaged properties. Hence,
    petitioners filed a complaint for the annulment of REM. BDO filed a motion
    to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action but it was denied. BDO
    then filed its answer. The petitioners failed to appear twice during the pre-
    trial conference despite notice. Hence, the case was also dismissed twice.
    The case was once again dismissed due to inaction of petitioners for
    unreasonable length of time. Petitioners appealed to the CA but it affirmed
    the trial courts dismissal. Hence, the petition for review under Rule 45.
    Petitioners contend that the only reason for the trial courts dismissal of the
    case was the failure of their counsel to move to set the case for pre-trial.
    However, Section 1, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
    amended, imposing upon the plaintiff the duty to promptly move to set the
    case for pre-trial, had been repealed and amended by A.M. No. 03-1-09-
    SC which took effect on August 16, 2004. This amendment to the rule on
    pre-trial now imposes on the clerk of court the duty to issue a notice of pre-
    trial if the plaintiff fails to file a motion to set the case for pre-trial
    conference.
    ISSUE
    Whether the dismissal of the case against the petitioners is proper.
    RULING
    The Court ruled in the affirmative.
    Under Section 1, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
    amended, it is the duty of the plaintiff, after the last pleading has been
    served and filed, to promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-
    trial. On August 16, 2004, A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC (Re: Proposed Rule on
    Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the
    Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures) took effect,
    which provides that within 5 days from date of filing of the reply, the
    plaintiff must promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial
    conference. If the plaintiff fails to file said motion within the given period,
    the Branch COC shall issue a notice of pre-trial. When the above guidelines
    took effect, the case was already at the pre-trial stage and it was the failure
    of petitioners to set the case anew for pre-trial conference which prompted
    the trial court to dismiss their complaint. While under the present Rules, it
    is now the duty of the clerk of court to set the case for pre-trial if the
    plaintiff fails to do so within the prescribed period, this does not relieve the
    plaintiff of his own duty to prosecute the case diligently. This case had been
    at the pre-trial stage for more than two years and petitioners have not
    shown special circumstances or compelling reasons to convince us that the
    dismissal of their complaint for failure to prosecute was unjustified.

    The petition is dismissed.

    You might also like