Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 70 views

    Martinez v. Buen

    Uploaded by

    Aaron James Puaso
    The Supreme Court ruled that while Buen filed the wrong remedy of certiorari instead of an appeal, the trial court judge in this case capriciously dismissed the case without stating the specific grounds. A dismissal under Rule 17 is usually with prejudice unless otherwise stated. Here, the trial court failed to indicate if the dismissal was with or without prejudice. While certiorari is not usually allowed if an appeal is available, it can be used if the trial judge acted capriciously. The trial court here did so by dismissing the case without reason. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the certiorari petition in this unique case.

    Copyright:

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

    Martinez v. Buen

    Uploaded by

    Aaron James Puaso
    70 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that while Buen filed the wrong remedy of certiorari instead of an appeal, the trial court judge in this case capriciously dismissed the case without stating the specific grounds. A dismissal under Rule 17 is usually with prejudice unless otherwise stated. Here, the trial court failed to indicate if the dismissal was with or without prejudice. While certiorari is not usually allowed if an appeal is available, it can be used if the trial judge acted capriciously. The trial court here did so by dismissing the case without reason. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the certiorari petition in this unique case.

    Original Title

    11. Martinez v. Buen

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that while Buen filed the wrong remedy of certiorari instead of an appeal, the trial court judge in this case capriciously dismissed the case without stating the specific grounds. A dismissal under Rule 17 is usually with prejudice unless otherwise stated. Here, the trial court failed to indicate if the dismissal was with or without prejudice. While certiorari is not usually allowed if an appeal is available, it can be used if the trial judge acted capriciously. The trial court here did so by dismissing the case without reason. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the certiorari petition in this unique case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    70 views1 page

    Martinez v. Buen

    Uploaded by

    Aaron James Puaso
    The Supreme Court ruled that while Buen filed the wrong remedy of certiorari instead of an appeal, the trial court judge in this case capriciously dismissed the case without stating the specific grounds. A dismissal under Rule 17 is usually with prejudice unless otherwise stated. Here, the trial court failed to indicate if the dismissal was with or without prejudice. While certiorari is not usually allowed if an appeal is available, it can be used if the trial judge acted capriciously. The trial court here did so by dismissing the case without reason. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the certiorari petition in this unique case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Rule 17 – Dismissal of Actions

    11. Martinez v. Buen (G.R. No. 187342, 5 April 2017)


    KEY TAKE-AWAY OR DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER

    A dismissal based on any of the grounds in Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court has the effect of an adjudication on the merits. Unless
    otherwise qualified by the court, a dismissal under said rule is considered with prejudice, which bars the refiling of the case.

    FACTS

    Noel Buen filed in the MeTC Manila an Action for Recovery of Personal Property (Toyota Tamaraw) against Robert Martinez. After
    Buen posted the required bond, MeTC awarded the possession to him. During the pendency of the civil case, Martinez filed a
    Complaint for Qualified Theft against Buen before RTC Manila. Buen went into hiding after a warrant of arrest was issued against
    him. Trial ensued in civil case. On the scheduled date of hearing, Buen’s counsel manifested in open court that Buen cannot attend
    his cross-examination and prayed that the case be archived which was granted. Claiming that he had no idea of the Order granting
    temporary archiving of the case, Martinez filed a Comment/Opposition and prayed that the motion filed by Buen be denied. MeTC
    treated Martinez’s comment/opposition as a motion for reconsideration and dismissed the case pursuant to the provisions of Sec.
    3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court.

    Buen filed a Petition for Certiorari before RTC and took issue with MeTC’s dismissal of the case pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 17. He
    alleged that unless a party’s conduct is so negligent or dilatory, courts should consider ordering lesser sanctions other than the
    dismissal of the case. He maintained that the delay brought about by his nonavailability to appear during the trial is “unexpected,
    unavoidable and justified” and beyond his will. RTC ruled in favor of Buen. Hence, Martinez filed a petition for certiorari before
    CA. He argued that a petition for certiorari in the RTC is not the proper remedy to challenge the MeTC’s order. Also, he argued that
    the MeTC, on its own, may dismiss the case on the ground of failure to prosecute. He argued that the dismissal was proper because
    Buen was a fugitive from justice as admitted by the latter’s counsel in open court and in his written motion to archive. He stated
    that the MeTC cannot speculate on when Buen would appear to continue the trial of the case and maintained that the pending
    case/should not be held hostage by Buen’s illegal and capricious act. CA denied. Hence, this petition. Martinez submits that Buen
    availed of the wrong remedy when Buen filed a petition for certiorari instead of an appeal from the MeTC Order of Dismissal.

    ISSUE/S STATUTES/ARTICLES INVOLVED

    Whether Buen’s petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If, for no justifiable
    assail the MeTC’s order dismissing the case pursuant to Sec. 3, 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
    Rule 17 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.

    HELD: YES. Certiorari will lie because MeTC judge capriciously and whimsically exercised his judgment when
    he dismissed the case without stating the specific ground on which the dismissal was based.

    A dismissal based on any of the grounds in Section 3, Rule 17 has the effect of an adjudication on the merits. Unless otherwise
    qualified by the court, a dismissal under said rule is considered with prejudice, which bars the refiling of the case. When
    an order completely disposes of the case and leaves nothing to be done by the court, it is a final order properly subject of an appeal.

    MeTC’s order dismissing the case pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 17 was silent as to whether the dismissal of the case was with prejudice.
    Thus, the general rule would apply, that is, the same would be considered to be one with prejudice. Under the circumstances,
    Buen’s remedy would have been to file an ordinary appeal in the RTC pursuant to Rule 40 of the Rules of Court.
    Here, Buen filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Since a special civil action for certiorari can only be entertained when there
    is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the RTC could have dismissed Buen’s petition
    outright. The rule that certiorari will not lie as a substitute for appeal, however, admits of exceptions. One of which is where the
    trial judge capriciously and whimsically exercised his judgment. This is present in this case. The MeTC judge capriciously and
    whimsically exercised his judgment when he treated Martinez’s (belated) Comment/Opposition as a motion for reconsideration
    and dismissed the case without stating the specific ground on which the dismissal was based.

    Section 3, Rule 17 provides four grounds for dismissal of a case due to the fault of the plaintiff. These are: a. Failure to appear on
    the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief; b. Failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time; c. Failure to comply
    with the Rules of Court; and d. Failure to comply with the order of the court. Here, while the Order indicated that the dismissal was
    made pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17, it did not provide for the specific ground upon which the dismissal was made, leaving Buen
    (and the appellate courts) to speculate as to the same.

    You might also like