Professional Documents
Culture Documents
* FIRST DIVISION.
146
147
REYES, J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which assails the Decision1
dated
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Enrico A. Lanzanas, with Associate
Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.,
concurring; Rollo, pp. 32-43.
148
_______________
2 Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, with Associate
Justices Antonio L. Villamor and Stephen C. Cruz, concurring; id., at pp.
44-45.
149
_______________
3 361 Phil. 160; 301 SCRA 212 (1999).
4 Id., at pp. 170-171; pp. 220-221.
150
Record shows that this case was filed in 1994 yet and until this
point in time there is no answer by the defendant. Likewise, the
Motion for Intervention, filed by Antonio Agro Development
Corporation was denied per record by the Court. However, [in spite]
of the denial[,] an answer in intervention was filed. Hence, plaintiff
now, per their motion and manifestation are praying for a default
order against PDCP [Bank], and for the striking off from the
records [of] IntervenorÊs Answer in Intervention.
In todayÊs hearing of the incidents, Atty. Cavada entered his
appearance and manifested that he will [sic] just filed a notice of
appearance as counsel for the defendant, Private Development
Corporation of the Philippines. Atty. Go appeared for the
Intervenor. Both counsels pray for a period of ten (10) days from
today to file their written opposition in these incidents subject for
todayÊs hearing.
_______________
5 Rollo, pp. 48-49.
151
_______________
6 Id., at p. 48.
7 CA Rollo, pp. 38-39.
8 Id., at pp. 55-58.
152
_______________
9 Id., at p. 58.
10 Id., at pp. 18-19.
11 Id., at p. 18.
153
_______________
12 Rollo, pp. 32-43.
13 Id., at p. 38.
14 Id., at p. 42.
15 Id., at pp. 44-45.
154
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Suico Industrial Corp. vs. Lagura-Yap
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
GRAVE REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT RULING THAT
RESPONDENT JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 28 OF MANDAUE CITY COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE
OF DISCRETION IN DECLARING THE PETITIONER[S] NON-
SUITED AND DISMISSING THE CASE ON THE GROUND OF
FAILURE TO FILE A PRE-TRIAL BRIEF.
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
GRAVE REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RULING THAT PETITIONERSÊ
NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED ON THE 14TH DAY AFTER
RECEIPT OF THE ORDER DENYING THEIR MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION [WAS FILED OUT OF TIME].16
_______________
16 Id., at p. 18.
17 Referred to as Order of dismissal dated September 5, 2002 in the
petitionÊs prayer; CA Rollo, pp. 38-39.
155
_______________
18 506 Phil. 603; 469 SCRA 633 (2005).
156
_______________
19 Id., at pp. 626-627; p. 644.
20 Id., at p. 628; p. 646.
21 G.R. No. 162518, August 19, 2009, 596 SCRA 450.
22 G.R. No. 167403, August 6, 2008, 561 SCRA 234.
23 G.R. No. 149508, October 10, 2007, 535 SCRA 411.
157
_______________
24 Supra note 21, at pp. 455-457.
25 G.R. No. 173942, June 25, 2008, 555 SCRA 345.
158
_______________
26 Id., at pp. 349-350.
159
_______________
27 G.R. No. 177456, September 4, 2009, 598 SCRA 378.
160
_______________
28 Id., at pp. 387-388, citing Barranco v. Commission on the
Settlement of Land Problems, 524 Phil. 533, 543; 491 SCRA 222, 232
(2006).
161
_______________
29 G.R. No. 179419, January 12, 2011, 639 SCRA 441.
30 Id., at p. 452, citing Development Bank of the Phils. v. CA, 251 Phil.
390, 392-395; 169 SCRA 409, 411-413 (1989).
162
_______________
31 439 Phil. 887; 391 SCRA 277 (2002).
32 Id., at p. 896; p. 285, citing Banco Filipino v. Court of Appeals, 389
Phil. 644, 656; 334 SCRA 305, 318 (2000).
33 Id., at p. 897; p. 316, citing Santos v. Court of Appeals, 413 Phil. 41,
54; 360 SCRA 521, 528 (2001).
163
_______________
34 481 Phil. 366; 438 SCRA 51 (2004).
164
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (C.J., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,
Bersamin and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.