G.R. No. 179556 - CONCORDIA MEDEL GOMEZ, VS. CORAZON MEDEL ALCANTARA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Wherefore, for failure of plaintiff to continue with her evidence in chief today, the Court is constrained to order her testimony thus far adduced stricken off the record and this case dismissed for plaintiff's failure to prosecute the same. Let a copy of this Order be furnished the Office of the Honorable Court Administrator. [7] Petitioner's counsel, Atty. Jaime B. Lumasag, Jr. filed a Motion for Reconsideration [8] of the 31 May 2000 Order of the RTC in Civil Case No. 97-84159, alleging that his failure to appear at the hearing set for that day was due to the very short notice given him. The Order setting Civil Case No. 97-84159 for hearing on 31 May 2000 was issued by the RTC only on 26 May 2000 and was received at Atty. Lumasag's office in the afternoon of the same day. Atty. Lumasag personally came to know of the notice of hearing in Civil Case No. 97-84159 on 30 May 2000 and the hearing was already scheduled for the next day, 31 May 2000. [9] Unfortunately, Atty. Lumasag already had a previous commitment to appear on the same date at the RTC of Malolos; hence, he filed with the RTC of Manila an urgent motion to transfer the date of hearing in Civil Case No. 97-84159. Atty. Lumasag set his Motion for Reconsideration for hearing on 30 June 2000 but, unfortunately, he came late for the said hearing. Judge Alarcon-Vergara immediately issued an Order denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and declaring her Order dated 31 May 2000 final. According to the RTC Order dated 30 June 2000: Today is June 30, 2000 and it is already past 8:30 a.m. Atty. Jaime Lumasag, in plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, specially the greeting portion of said motion, manifested that he will present his oral arguments today. This was his chosen date. His failure to appear on the exact time that he prayed in his motion for him to present his oral arguments, and considering that there was already an order dismissing this case for failure to prosecute, the Court is constrained to order, as it is hereby orders, the denial of said Motion for Reconsideration and this order is final. [10] On 19 December 2000, RTC Branch 50 in Civil Case No. 97-84159 issued another Order which reads: The records show that plaintiff's counsel received a copy of the Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration dated June 30, 2000, on September 5, 2000. Thus, plaintiff had until September 20, 2000 within which to elevate the dismissal to the higher Courts. Failing to file any appeal or petition with the higher Courts, the dismissal had already attained finality. [11] Petitioner no longer appealed the dismissal of Civil Case No. 97-84159 to the Court of Appeals. Less than four years later, on 13 October 2004, petitioner filed another Complaint [12] for recovery of share of inheritance with damages against respondent, docketed as Civil Case No. 04-111160 , which was raffled to the RTC of Manila, Branch 27. In answer, respondent moved for the dismissal of petitioner's Complaint in Civil