G.R. NO. 161286 - SPOUSES NARCISO RAYOAN AND PARALUMAN TOLENTINO, VS. ALLAN FRONDA AND SPOUSES CHARLITO VALDEZ AND AVELINA VALDEZ.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED and the earlier order of dismissal stands [12] (Emphasis and italics in the original; underscoring supplied) Petitioners appealed the dismissal of the complaint to the Court of Appeals assigning to the RTC the following errors in their Brief: [13] THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT MOTU PROPIO OR ON ITS OWN; THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ITS APPLICATION OF THE RULES. [14] Taking exception to the order of Branch 37 of the RTC dismissing petitioners' first complaint (Civil Case No. 728) "for failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time [which] operates as an adjudication on the merits under Section 3, Rule 17, Rules of Court," petitioners invited attention, in their Brief filed before the appellate court, to the fact that Branch 37 of the RTC granted Fronda's Motion to Dismiss "but omitted and denied the prayer that it is with prejudice ." In any event, petitioners justified their not prosecuting the case on causes they mentioned in their Brief. By the assailed the decision [15] of May 26, 2003, the appellate court affirmed the RTC dismissal of the second case - Civil Case No. 780. Citing Section 3, Rule 17 of the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, [16] the appellate court held that petitioners had been "heedless in their duty to prosecute the case" following their receipt of respondents' Answer on October 12, 2000, for they failed to "punctually" move ex-parte within five (5) days for the setting of the case for pre-trial in accordance with Administrative Circular No. 3-99 the pertinent portion of which reads: x x x A. Pre-Trial 1. Within five (5) days after the last pleading joining the issues has been filed and served, the plaintiff must move ex-parte that the case be set for pre-trial conference. x x x [17] On petitioners' claim that they were not furnished a copy of the defendants' Answer, the appellate court brushed it aside as bereft of merit, it noting that "Registry Receipt No. 909" covering the mailing of copy of the defendants' Answer belied their claim. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration [18] of the appellate court's decision upon the following grounds: DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES SENT A COPY OF THEIR ANSWER TO THE WRONG LAWYER WHICH FACT WAS OVERLOOKED BY THE LOWER COURT AND THIS HONORABLE COURT; NBI FINDINGS SHOW FALSIFICATION AND FORGERY; and IN THE PARAMOUNT INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. (Underscoring supplied) In support of their motion, petitioners, zeroing in on only the first ground for obvious reasons, claimed that Fronda et al. furnished by registered mail a copy of their Answer to Atty. Romeo Montefalco who was their lawyer in the first case - Civil Case No. 728 but not in the second case - Civil Case No. 780. By Resolution of December 8, 2003, [19] the appellate court found "no compelling justification or a valid reason" to disturb its decision under reconsideration. Hence, the present petition for review [20] raising as