View full case

SPS. AZUCENA B. CORPUZ v. CITIBANK

FACTS:

The facts of the case are as follows: Azucena Corpuz was a cardholder of Citibank Mastercard and Citibank VISA Card. She made full payment on both credit cards on December 7, 1998, and also made advance check payments to cover future transactions. While in Italy on December 9, 1998, Azucena's VISA Card was not honored at a restaurant and a shop, forcing her to pay in cash. Azucena's husband inquired with Citibank and was informed that her check payments had not yet been cleared. Azucena sent a letter to Citibank demanding the refund of her overseas call expenses and subsequently requested for the cancellation of the cards. Citibank did not respond to the letter and continued to send billing statements charging interest and late payment penalties. The spouses filed a complaint for damages against Citibank, who then filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and the motion to declare Citibank in default. The trial court then dismissed the spouses' complaint and directed Citibank to present evidence on its counterclaim after the spouses failed to appear at the pre-trial conference. The spouses' motion for reconsideration was denied, and the trial court directed Citibank to present evidence on its counterclaim within 30 days. The spouses filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which set aside the trial court's order allowing Citibank to present evidence ex parte but upheld the dismissal of the spouses' complaint. Citibank's counterclaim was eventually dismissed for failure to present evidence.

The spouses in this case failed to appear at the pre-trial of their case. They sought to excuse their absence, citing reasons such as their lawyer forgetting to calendar the pre-trial and their own busy schedules as members of the bar. The appellate court granted Citibank's motion for partial reconsideration, allowing it to prosecute its Counterclaim. The spouses filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They then filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court. In a separate case, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Citibank's Counterclaim. Citibank filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. The Court denied Citibank's petition for failing to show any reversible error. The Court consolidated the two cases. The spouses argued that their non-appearance at the pre-trial should be excused and that their case should be considered on its merits. They also argued that there were different sanctions for failure to appear at pre-trial and for dismissal due to the fault of the plaintiff. The Court denied the spouses' petition, ruling that the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal and not a petition for certiorari. The Court found no exceptional circumstances to warrant reversal of the lower courts' decision. The spouses' counsel admitted to failing to inform his clients of the scheduled pre-trial and forgetting about it due to a heavy workload. The spouses also admitted to receiving notice of the pre-trial.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the dismissal of the complaint due to the plaintiffs' failure to appear at the pre-trial is with prejudice or without prejudice.

  2. Whether the petition for certiorari filed by the plaintiffs is the proper remedy.

  3. Whether the dismissal of the complaint due to failure to appear at pre-trial is with prejudice or not.

  4. Whether Citibank can still prosecute its counterclaim despite the dismissal of the complaint.

  5. Whether Citibank's failure to present evidence is a ground for dismissal of its counterclaim.

  6. Whether the trial court committed reversible error in proceeding with the case despite the absence of a restraining order or injunction.

RULING:

  1. The dismissal of the complaint due to the plaintiffs' failure to appear at the pre-trial is with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court, as provided in Section 5 of Rule 18.

  2. The petition for certiorari filed by the plaintiffs is not the proper remedy. The proper remedy was to file an ordinary appeal, since the dismissal was a final order.

  3. The dismissal of the complaint due to failure to appear at pre-trial is with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court.

  4. Citibank can still prosecute its counterclaim despite the dismissal of the complaint.

  5. The court held that Citibank's failure to present evidence is a ground for dismissal of its counterclaim. Citibank did not seek reconsideration of the trial court's order denying its ex parte motion to present evidence. Furthermore, it filed a motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing its counterclaim only after a significant delay, without any valid reason.

  6. The court ruled that the trial court did not commit any reversible error in proceeding with the case despite the absence of a restraining order or injunction. According to Section 7 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, a petition for certiorari shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unless the public respondent is enjoined from further proceeding. In this case, no restraining order or injunction was issued, thus the trial court was justified in proceeding with the case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The dismissal of an action due to the plaintiff's failure to appear at the pre-trial is with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court, as provided in Section 5 of Rule 18.

  • The proper remedy for the dismissal of a complaint is to file an ordinary appeal, not a petition for certiorari, if the dismissal is a final order.

  • The failure to appear at the pre-trial must be due to a valid cause in order for it to be considered excusable negligence, as provided in Section 4 of Rule 18.

  • Pre-trial is mandatory, and the trial court has the discretion to declare a party non-suited in the absence of a showing of grave abuse of discretion.

  • Failure of the plaintiff to appear at pre-trial when required shall be cause for dismissal of the action, which is with prejudice unless otherwise ordered by the court. (Section 5, Rule 18)

  • Failure of a party to appear at pre-trial amounts to a failure to comply with the Rules or any order of the court, and thus, the dismissal of the complaint is essentially due to the party's fault. (Perkin Elmer Singapore v. Dakila Trading)

  • The pendency of a petition with the appellate court does not automatically suspend the proceedings in the trial court, unless a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction was issued. (Section 7, Rule 65)

  • Failure to present evidence within the period ordered by the trial court constitutes a waiver and the opportunity to present evidence lapses. (Cebu Pacific Air, Inc. v. Tan)

  • Failure to present evidence can be a ground for dismissal of a counterclaim.

  • A trial court's decision to proceed with a case despite the absence of a restraining order or injunction is valid if there is no legal impediment under the Rules of Court.