G.R. No. 177456 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, VS. DOMINGO R. DANDO. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding the [herein respondent Dando's] motion to dismiss to be impressed with merit the same is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the instant case is hereby dismissed with prejudice. [16] BPI filed a Motion for Reconsideration [17] of the 10 October 2003 Order of the RTC, praying for the liberal interpretation of the rules. Expectedly, Dando filed his Comment/Opposition thereto. [18] On 13 January 2004, the RTC , now presided by Judge Cesar O. Untalan (Judge Untalan), issued an Order resolving the Motion for Reconsideration of BPI as follows: The Court finds merit in plaintiff's motion. Considering that although reglementary periods under the Rules of Court are to be strictly observed to prevent needless delays, jurisprudence nevertheless allows the relaxation of procedural rules. Since technicalities are not ends in themselves but exist to protect and promote substantive rights of litigants [Sy vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 127263, April 12, 2000; Adamo vs. IAC, 191 SCRA 195 (1990); Far East Marble (Phils.), Inc. vs. CA, 225 SCRA 249, 258 (1993)], in the interest of substantial justice, and without giving premium to technicalities, the motion for reconsideration is hereby granted. [19] At the end of its 13 January 2004 Order, the RTC disposed: Wherefore, the Order dated October 10, 2003 is hereby reconsidered and set aside. Let this case be set for pre-trial anew on February 13, 2004 at 8:30 in the morning. Notify both parties and their respective counsel of this setting. [20] It was then Dando's turn to file a Motion for Reconsideration, [21] which the RTC addressed in its Order dated 3 March 2004, thus: Finding no new issue raised in defendant's motion, as to warrant a reconsideration of the assailed Order dated January 13, 2004, the instant motion is hereby denied. The Pre-trial set on March 19, 2004 at 8:30 in the morning shall proceed accordingly. [22] Dando sought recourse from the Court of Appeals by filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 82881. [23] Dando averred that RTC Judge Untalan committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in issuing its Order dated 13 January 2004. The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision on 20 November 2006 where it held that: In this case, the BPI stated in its motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing its action that the delay in the filing of the pre-trial brief was solely due to the heavy load of paper work of its counsel, not to mention the daily hearings the latter had to attend. We find this excuse too flimsy to justify the reversal of an earlier order dismissing the action. The BPI did not come forward with the most convincing reason for the relaxation of the rules, or has not shown any persuasive reason why it should be exempt from abiding by the rules. We therefore find the public respondent to have gravely abused his discretion in considering and granting the BPI's motion for