G.R. No. 149908 - UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, VS. MIGUEL “MIKE” MAGPAYO.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the trial court issued an Order of Dismissal for failure to prosecute. [4] On October 22, 1997, respondent filed an omnibus motion, [5] stating therein that he arrived at the court at around 2:00 p.m. and that he did not intend to be late for the pre-trial, but the traffic at the South Superhighway was heavy due to construction work. He attached copies of two powers of attorney which were dated May 20, 1997 and September 24, 1997 [6] respectively as proof that there indeed was a special power of attorney executed but that respondents counsel forgot to bring it to the pre-trial. Respondent prayed that the dismissal order be reversed and the trial court inhibit itself from hearing the case. [7] Respondent added that he and his counsels omissions were excusable; that he has a valid cause of action against petitioner; and the ends of justice would be served if the trial courts order be reconsidered. [8] The trial court found respondents plea unmeritorious and affirmed its order of dismissal. [9] The matter was then elevated to the Court of Appeals, as CA-G.R. CV No. 59532. The appellate court found merit in the appeal saying that the Rules of Civil Procedure are not cast in stone. [10] It held that this case did not show either an evident scheme to delay the disposition of the case, nor a wanton failure to observe the mandatory requirements of the rules. It found that respondent had appeared in court, only that he arrived at around 2:20 p.m. rather than 1:30 p.m., so that it was already after the case had been called and an order had already been issued. The appellate court gave credence to the manifestation of respondents counsel that he had a special power of attorney from his client, which was attached to the appeal. Hence the order of dismissal by the trial court was reversed. [11] Before us now, petitioner sets forth as sole issue: WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSAL OF THE TRIAL COURTS DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT FOR RESPONDENTS FAILURE TO APPEAR DURING PRE-TRIAL AND HIS COUNSELS FAILURE TO PRODUCE A SPECIAL POWER [OF] ATTORNEY WAS IN ACCORD WITH THE RULES OF COURT AND APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE. [12] Petitioner argues that it is mandatory for both the party and his counsel to be present at the pre-trial. The severity of the consequence for its non-compliance is evident as the Rules of Court states that it shall be a cause for dismissal of the action with prejudice unless otherwise ordered by the court. [13] Petitioner contends that the respondent failed to appear for no valid cause. According to petitioner, respondent knew that road construction had commenced months before and was still ongoing at the South Superhighway. Respondent had the whole morning to travel to Parañaque to make it to court by 1:30 p.m. but failed to leave earlier than he did, so that according to petitioner there was inexcusable negligence on respondents part. Thus, there was no valid cause under Section 4, Rule 18, of the Rules of Court, as cited b