Case Digest: MANIGO K. RAMOS v. PURITA G. ALVENDIA, et al.

MANIGO K. RAMOS v. PURITA G. ALVENDIA, et al.
568 SCRA 239 (2008), SECOND DIVISION

Manigo filed a Complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas for the cancellation of the titles of Spouses Severino and reconveyance of the parcels of land. Manigo alleged that Hermilina Casalan deceived him, and colluded with Purita Alvendia, by making it appear that Manigo and his deceased brother Orlando donated to Purita the parcels of land. It was further alleged that Purita transferred the titles to their names and then donated the same to Jose and Araceli Severino.

The RTC issued an Order declaring Manigo non-suited for failure of his counsel to appear and to file pre-trial brief. The trial court accordingly dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court‘s decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the procedural rules in relation to the filing of Pre-Trial brief should be relaxed

HELD:

The dismissal of a complaint for failure to file pre-trial brief is discretionary on the part of the trial court. While Manigo’s counsel’s explanation behind his failure to file pre-trial brief may not be convincing, given, among other considerations, Manigo‘s presence when the case was called for pre-trial, the nature of the case, the subject involved – real properties and the eventual appearance in the court of Manigo’s counsel whose claim that he was, on arrival initially barred from entering it and was even shouted upon by the trial judge has not been disputed, the dismissal of the case by the trial court had been too precipitate and was not commensurate with the level of non-compliance by Manigo’s counsel with the order of the court.

The phrase “in the interest of substantial justice” is not, of course, a magic wand that would automatically compel the suspension of procedural rules. But exigencies and situations might occasionally demand flexibility in their application. Considering the circumstances attendant to the present case, substantial justice can be best served if both parties are given the full opportunity to ventilate their respective claims in a full-blown trial.