G.R. No. 147793 - BOAZ INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION AND F. R. CEMENT CORPORATION, VS. WOODWARD JAPAN, INC. AND NORTH FRONT SHIPPING SERVICES, INC..DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Order dated 09 August 1999 is MODIFIED in the sense that the third-party complaint of Boaz International Trading Corp. and F. R. Cement Corp. against North Front Shipping Services, Inc. must be as it is hereby reinstated . In all other respects, the Order is AFFIRMED . Finally, the writ of preliminary injunction issued by this Court on 29 June 2000 is perforce dissolved." [4] The assailed Resolution denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. On the other hand, the dispositive portion of the August 9, 1999 Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City (Branch 135), which the CA later modified, reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, Order is hereby issued: `1. Reinstating plaintiff's complaint and allowing plaintiff to present its evidence on its complaint; `2. Allowing plaintiff to refute and/or present evidence against the ex-parte evidence presented by defendants on their counterclaim.'" [5] The Facts The facts of the case are summarized by the CA as follows: "Respondent Woodward Japan, Inc. (Woodward, for brevity) filed a complaint for a `Sum of Money and Damages' against petitioners Boaz International Trading Corp. (Boaz, for brevity) and F. R. Cement Corp. (F. R. Cement, for brevity). The complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 96-1440, was raffled to the RTC of Makati, Branch 135, presided over by public respondent Judge Francisco B. Ibay. "Petitioners Boaz and F. R. Cement filed their [A]nswer to the complaint as well as a third party complaint against North Front Shipping Services, Inc. (North Front[,] for brevity). "Respondent North Front filed its answer to the third-party complaint with a counterclaim against the third-party plaintiffs. "The court a quo scheduled a pre-trial conference for 04 November 1997. This initial pre-trial conference was however postponed to give the parties time to settle their respective claims amicably. Succeeding schedules of pre-trial conference were likewise cancelled for the same reason. Finally, when it became apparent that the parties would not be able to arrive at an amicable settlement, the trial court scheduled a pre-trial conference anew for 20 October 1998. "On the scheduled day of the pre-trial conference, both Woodward and its counsel failed to appear. Consequently, counsel for Boaz and F. R. Cement moved that Woodward be declared non-suited, that the complaint against them be dismissed and that they be allowed to present evidence on their counterclaim. "Third-party defendant North Front likewise filed a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint which was not objected to by third-party plaintiffs Boaz and F. R. Cement. "In an Order dated 20 October 1998, the court a quo granted the motion of Boaz and F. R. Cement to dismiss the complaint of Woodward and the motion of North Front to dismiss the third-party complaint of Boaz and F. R. Cement. "Counsel for Woodward thereafter filed an urgent ex-parte motion 1) to reconsider the Order of 2