Case Digest: PNB CREDIT CARD CORPORATION v. MATILDE M. RODRIGUEZ

PNB CREDIT CARD CORPORATION v. MATILDE M. RODRIGUEZ

500 SCRA 576 (2006), THIRD DIVISION

Allegedly failing to settle her account arising from her availment of her PNB Credit Card to which she charged her purchases inclusive of interest and penalty, PNB Credit Card Corporation filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati against Matilde M. Rodriguez (Matilde), together with Lorenzo Y. Villalon (Villalon), her co-obligor.

The complaint was subsequently dismissed “for lack of interest to prosecute, without prejudice.” The records do not show that the Matilde and Villalon were furnished copy of the order. A second order was issued by the trial court which again dismissed the case without prejudice.

A Petition for Review on Certiorari was filed by Matilde arguing that the order of dismissal without prejudice did not become final as it could be “revived within a reasonable period of time,” citing Medrano & Associates v. Roxas & Company.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court‘s first or second order dismissing Matilde‘s complaint had become final

HELD:

The facts and circumstances attendant to Medrano cited by Matilde, wherein the Court held that even assuming that the therein order of dismissal without prejudice had become final, “[t]here was no reason why instead of asking plaintiff to refile the case, the case cannot be reopened in the interest of justice,” are clearly different from those of the present case. In Medrano, the trial court, by Order of March 5, 1986, motu propio dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. On May 5, 1986, the plaintiff filed a motion to set the case for hearing on May 9, 1986. Before that or on May 7, 1986, the plaintiff‘s counsel received a copy of the March 5, 1986 order of dismissal.

Although the March 5, 1986 order of dismissal appears to have become final as plaintiff failed to appeal therefrom or to file a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period, the reason plaintiff failed to act accordingly appears to be that even before receipt of said notice of the dismissal order he filed a motion to set the case for hearing. He was obviously awaiting action on the same. Nevertheless, the trial court reset the hearing of the case not once but three times. The only logical consequence of these actions is that the trial court effectively reconsidered its order of dismissal dated March 5.

In other words, in Medrano, this Court took into account the fact that, among other things, before the plaintiff received a copy of the dismissal without prejudice order, it filed before the trial court a motion to set the case for hearing, which the trial court granted when it set the case for hearing three times, which action of the trial court this Court took to logically mean that the order of dismissal was “effectively reconsidered.”