01222020
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was
Zenaida Polanco, Carlos De Jesus, Avelino De Jesus, Baby
De Jesus, and Demetrio Santos v. Carmen Cruz, represented
by atty-in-fact, Virgilio Cruz
Topic: Setting for Pre-Trial
Fcats:
1. A complaint for damages was filed by Carmen, through
atty-in-fact, Virgilio Cruz against the Petitioners for
destroying her palay crops
2. The petitioners were the owners of the agrigultural land
she tilled. She was a lawful tenant and had been in actual
possession of the land when they mailiciously filled so with
soil and palay husk (July 1 & 2, 2000)
3. That petitioners be held liable for actual damages, moral
damages, exemplary damages, litigation expenses and
attorney’s fees, and costs of the suit.
4. Petitioners filed Motion to Dismiss (Order dated Dec. 4,
2000) but were denied by the trial court. The trial court said
that it had jurisdiction over the case because of the claim
for damages in the Complaint and not the DARAB. Also,
the Complaint was properly filed bec. Certificate of Non-
forum shopping was signed by Virgilio.
5. Petitioners simultaneously filed an Answer to the
Complaint and Motion for Reconsideration of the Order.
This was denied by the court for lack of merit (Sept. 10,
2001)
6. An Order was issued in Jan. 9, 2002 by the court dismissing
the case due to respondent’s failure to prosecute.
7.
denied. An appeal was made to CA which rendered the
appeal granted and the case was remanded to RTC Branch
17 Malolos.
8. CA ruled that the trial court erred in finding that the parties
failed to take the necessary action regarding the case
because the records show:
a. When the petitioners filed an Answer to the
complaint, respondent filed an Opposition to the
Motion for Reconsideration with Manifestation
Re: Answer of Defendants
b. Previous acts of the respondent do not manifest
lack of interest to prosecute (since filing the
Complaint, she filed an Opposition to the Motion
to Dismiss of petitioners, an Answer to the
counterclaim, and Comment to the Motion for
Reconsideration)
c. She did not ignore the Motion to Dismiss of the
petitioners nor did she repeatedly fail to appear
before the court
d. No substantial prejudice would be caused to
petitioners and the strict application of the rule
on dismissal is unjustified; there was an
absence of pattern and scheme to delay the
disposition of the case on the part of
respondent. (justice better served if remanded)
e. CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration of the
Petitioners.
Issue: W/N CA’s decision was contrary to law and prevailing
jurisprudence
Petitioners’ arguments:
1. Respondent failed to comply with the mandate to
promptly move the setting of the case for pretrial.
2. “heavy pressures of work” does not justify the failure to
move the setting of the case for pre-trial
3. Allegations of the Complaint pertain to her status as a
tenant of Elena De Jesus and it amounts to forum
shopping that would extremely prejudice them
SC’s Ruling:
● CA correctly noted that they raised the matter of
forum shopping for the first time only in their
Motion for Reconsideration (issues not previously
ventilated cannot be raised for the first time in
appeal much less when first raised in the motion
for reconsideration of a decision of the appellate
court )
● Court does not find that the Complaint to be
constitutive of the elements of forum shopping.
Respondent merely described herself as tenant of
petitioners and mentioned that there was an
unlawful detainer case involving the parcel of land
which is also involved in the instant civil case for
damages.
● Although there was an identity of parties in the
instant case for damages and the unlawful detainer
case, there is no identity of reliefs prayed for.
● Sec. 1 Rule 18, imposes upon the plaintiff the
duty to promptly move ex parte to have the
case set for pre-trial after the last pleading has
been served and filed. Sec. 3 Rule 17, failure on
the part of the plaintiff to comply with said
duty without any justifiable cause may result
to dismissal of complaint for failure to
prosecute his action for an unreasonable
length of time or failure to comply with the
rules of procedure.
o There are special and compelling
reasons which would make the strict
application of the rule clearly
unjustified.
o CA correctly held that the dismissal of the
respondent’s complaint is too severe.
Respondent prosecuted her action with
utmost diligence and with reasonable
dispatch since filling the Complaint.
o When the trial court dismissed her case she
immediately filed Notice of appeal
o She never failed to comply with the
Rules of Court or any order of the trial
court at any other time. Failing to file a
motion to set the case for pre-trial was
her first and only technical lapse during
the entire proceedings. No evident
pattern or scheme to delay. (Court, on
several occasions relaxed the rigid
 application of the rules of procedure to
fully ventilate the merits of the case)
● A.M. NO. 03-1-09-SC (took effect on Aug. 16,
2004):
o AIMS: to abbreviate court proceedings,
ensure prompt disposition of cases and
decongest court dockets.
o Within 5 days from date of filing of the
reply, the plaintiff must promptly move
exparte the case to be set for pre-trial
conference
o If the plaintiff fails to file said motion
within the given period, the Branch
COC (clerk of court) shall issue a notice
of pre-trial.
o The COC of RTC Branch 17 of Malolos
should issue a notice of pre-trial to the
parties and set the case for pre-trial.
(Thus, the COC was directed to issue
notice)