G.R. No.

201715

December 11, 2013

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

vs.
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), and NATIONAL
POWER CORPORATION (NPC), Respondents.

FACTS:

MERALCO and NAPOCOR had entered into the CSE on November

21, 1994. The CSE would be effective for 10 years starting from
January 1, 1995.

In the years 2002, 2003 and 2004, due to circumstances beyond the
reasonable control of the parties, MERALCO drew from NAPOCOR
electric power and energy less than the minimum quantities
stipulated in the CSE for those years. MERALCO did not pay the
minimum monthly charges but only the charges for the electric power
and energy actually taken. Thus, NAPOCOR served on MERALCO
a claim for the contracted but undrawn electric power and energy
starting the billing month of January 2002.

MERALCO objected to the claim of NAPOCOR, and served its

notice of termination of the CSE.

Recognizing that any delays in the resolution of their dispute was

inimical to public interest, MERALCO and NAPOCOR agreed to
submit their dispute to mediation.

The motions filed by the OSG raise a common issue: whether or not
the parties, MERALCO and NPC, should be referred to arbitration?

After a judicious evaluation of the arguments by the parties, this

Regional Trial Court rules that MERALCO and NPC are not required
to undergo arbitration.
Also on November 22, 2010, the petitioner brought in the CA a
petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus (C.A.-G.R. SP No.
116863), with an application for a temporary restraining order (TRO)
and writ of preliminary injunction (WPI), alleging that respondent
RTC Judge had committed grave abuse of discretion.

CA DENIED and ordered to proceed to trial in S.C.A. Case No. 3392,

and to immediately resolve the same with dispatch. CA denied the
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Hence, the petitioner has
appealed.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT The COURT OF APPEALS erred in allowing

the trial court to proceed with the PRE-TRIAL and subsequent trial
in S.C.A. CASE NO. 3392 in disregard of petitioner’s right.

RULING:

NO. The RTC’s proceeding with the pre-trial set on November 24,
2010 was entirely in accord with the Rules of Court. While it is true
that the OSG had filed on November 22, 2010 the petition for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, the CA did not restrain the
RTC from thus proceeding. Absent any TRO or WPI stopping the
RTC from proceeding, the mere filing or pendency of the special civil
actions for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition did not interrupt the
due course of the proceedings in the main case. This is quite clear
from the revised Section 7, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, 28 which
mandated that the petition shall not interrupt the course of the
principal case.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review on certiorari, and

AFFIRM the decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals on
October 14, 2011 in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 116863.
SO ORDERED.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G.R. No. 209605, January 12, 2015

NEIL B. AGUILAR AND RUBEN CALIMBAS, Petitioners,

vs.
LIGHTBRINGERS CREDIT COOPERATIVE, Respondent.

FACTS:

This case stemmed from the three (3) complaints for sum of money
separately filed by respondent Lightbringers Credit
Cooperative (respondent) on July 14, 2008 against petitioners
Aguilar and Calimbas, and one Perlita
Tantiangco (Tantiangco) (Tantiangco, Aguilar and Calimbas were
members of the cooperative and borrowed money)which were
consolidated before the First Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
Dinalupihan, Bataan (MCTC).

On May 9, 2012, the MCTC resolved the consolidated cases in three

separate decisions. In Civil Case No. 1428,11 the MCTC dismissed
the complaint against Tantiangco because there was no showing
that she received the amount being claimed. Moreover, the PNB
check was made payable to “cash” and was encashed by a certain
Violeta Aguilar. in Civil Case No. 142912 and 1430,13 however, found
both Calimbas and Aguilar liable to respondent for their respective
debts. And in Civil Case No. 1430, judgment is hereby rendered in
plaintiff’s favor and against the defendant, ordering the latter to pay
the plaintiff the amount of ?76,152.00 with interest at the rate of 12%
per annum from February 28, 2007 until fully paid.

On July 12, 2012, a notice of appeal16 was filed by the petitioners,

and on August 15, 2012, they filed their joint memorandum for
appeal17 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Bataan (RTC).
On January 2, 2013, the RTC rendered separate decisions in Civil
Case No. DH-1300-1218 and Civil Case No. DH-1299-1219 which
affirmed the MCTC decisions.

Aggrieved, Aguilar and Calimbas filed a petition for review22 before

the CA on March 11, 2013. It was dismissed, however. Hence this
petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the MCTC properly issued the August 25, 2009
Order, allowing respondent to present evidence ex parte to
petitioners failure to attend the pre-trial conference on August 25,
2009 pursuant to Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court.

RULING:

YES. The rule is that a court can only consider the evidence
presented by respondent in the MCTC because the petitioners failed
to attend the pre-trial conference on August 25, 2009 pursuant to
Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court.33 The Court, however,
clarifies that failure to attend the pre-trial does not result in the
“default” of the defendant. Instead, the failure of the defendant to
attend shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex
parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof.
If the absent party is the plaintiff, then his case shall be dismissed.
If it is the defendant who fails to appear, then the plaintiff is allowed
to present his evidence ex parte and the court shall render judgment
on the basis thereof. Thus, the plaintiff is given the privilege to
present his evidence without objection from the defendant, the
likelihood being that the court will decide in favor of the plaintiff, the
defendant having forfeited the opportunity to rebut or present his
own evidence.
The pre-trial cannot be taken for granted. It is not a mere technicality
in court proceedings for it serves a vital objective: the simplification,
abbreviation and expedition of the trial, if not indeed its dispensation.
More significantly, the pre-trial has been institutionalized as the
answer to the clarion call for the speedy disposition of cases. Hailed
as the most important procedural innovation in Anglo-Saxon justice
in the nineteenth century, it paved the way for a less cluttered trial
and resolution of the case. It is, thus, mandatory for the trial court to
conduct pre-trial in civil cases in order to realize the paramount
objective of simplifying, abbreviating and expediting trial.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.

In accord with the discourse on the substantive issue, the January

2, 2013 decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Dinalupihan,
Bataan, is AFFIRMED. The award of attorney's fees is,
however,DELETED.

SO ORDERED.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G.R. No. 182864, January 12, 2015

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., Petitioner, v. BPI/MS

INSURANCE CORP., & MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE CO.,
LTD., Respondents.

FACTS:

On 29 December 2004, BPI/MS Insurance Corporation (BPI/MS)

and Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company Limited (Mitsui) filed a
Complaint3 before the RTC of Makati City against ESLI and ATI to
recover actual damages amounting to US$17,560.48 with legal
interest, attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

The complaint alleged that the various shipment on different

occasions arrived at the port of Manila in an unknown condition and
was turned over to ATI for safekeeping. Upon withdrawal of the
shipment by the Calamba Steel’s representative, it was found out
that part of the shipment was damaged and was in bad order
condition such that there was a Request for Bad Order Survey.

Calamba Steel attributed the damages on both shipments to ESLI

as the carrier and ATI as the arrastreoperator. When ESLI and ATI
refused to pay, Calamba Steel filed an insurance claim for the total
amount of the cargo against BPI/MS and Mitsui as cargo insurers.
As a result, BPI/MS and Mitsui became subrogated to its rights.

RTC Makati City rendered a decision finding both the ESLI and ATI
liable for the damages sustained by the two shipments. Court of
Appeals absolved ATI from liability thereby modifying the decision of
the trial court.

Before this Court, ESLI seeks the reversal of the ruling on its liability.

ISSUE:

Whether or not pre-trial admissions are legally binding on the party

making the admissions.

RULING:

YES. Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party making

the admissions. Pre-trial admission in civil cases is one of the
instances of judicial admissions explicitly provided for under
Section 7, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that the
contents of the pre-trial order shall control the subsequent course
of the action, thereby, defining and limiting the issues to be tried.
In Bayas v. Sandiganbayan, this Court emphasized that:

Once the stipulations are reduced into writing and signed by the
parties and their counsels, they become binding on the parties who
made them. They become judicial admissions of the fact or facts
stipulated. Even if placed at a disadvantageous position, a party may
not be allowed to rescind them unilaterally, it must assume the
consequences of the disadvantage. The admission having been
made in a stipulation of facts at pre-trial by the parties, it must be
treated as a judicial admission. Under Section 4, of Rule 129 of the
Rules of Court, a judicial admission requires no proof.

Indeed, the earlier discussions on ESLI’s admission of the existence

and due execution of the invoices, cover and disprove the argument
regarding actual declaration of payment. The bills of lading bore a
notation on the manner of payment which was “Freight Prepaid” and
“As Arranged” while the invoices indicated the amount exactly paid
by the shipper to ESLI.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari. The

Decision dated 31 January 2008 and Resolution dated 5 May 2008
of the Second Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV. No.
88744 are hereby AFFIRMED.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G.R. No. 190277 July 23, 2014

ABSOLUTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner,

vs.

METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Respondent.

FACTS:

On October 5, 2000, Sherwood Holdings Corporation and Spouses

Sandy Ang and Arlene Ang filed a case for sum of money against
private respondent Absolute Management Corporation before the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 80 and docketed as
Civil Case No. Q-00-42105.
The counsel for Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company failed to
produce written authorization to represent her client during the pre-
trial. The Trial Court rendered Metropolitan in default.

Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA alleging that the
RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the aforestated
orders. CA reversed decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in

issuing such order of default.

RULING:

NO. In affirming the decision of the Trial Court, the Supreme Court
held that where a party may not himself be present at the pretrial,
and another person substitutes for him, or his lawyer undertakes to
appear not only as an attorney but in substitution of the client’s
person, it is imperative for that representative of the lawyer to have
“special authority” to make such substantive agreements as only the
client otherwise has capacity to make.

The applicable provision under Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil

Procedure, as amended, states, viz.:

SEC. 4. Appearance of parties. - It shall be the duty of the parties

and their counsel to appear at the pre-trial. The non-appearance of
a party may be excused only if a valid cause is shown therefor or if
a representative shall appear in his behalf fully authorized in writing
to enter into an amicable settlement, to submit to alternative modes
of dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations or admissions of
facts and of documents.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED.
The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 101568 dated August 13, 2009 and November 13, 2009,
respectively, are REVERSED. The Orders dated May 2, 2007 and
September 3, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch 80, in Civil Case No. Q-00-42105 are hereby REINSTATED
and UPHELD.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G.R. No. 161380, April 21, 2014

AZNAR BROTHERS REALTY COMPANY, Petitioner,

vs.

SPOUSES JOSE AND MAGDALENA YBAÑEZ,Respondents.

FACTS:

On March 21, 1964, Casimiro Ybañez (Casimiro), with the marital

consent of Maria Daclan, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor
of Aznar Brothers for a certain lot planted with coconut trees situated
in Banika-Bulacao, Pardo, Cebu City.

On May 26, 1989, Aznar Brothers filed in the RTC a complaint

against Jose R. Ybañez claiming absolute ownership of Lot No.
18563 by virtue of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 21, 1964
executed in its favor by Casimiro (Civil Case No. CEB-7887).

Aznar Brothers Realty Company (Aznar Brothers) is on appeal to

review and undo the adverse decision promulgated on October 10,
2002, whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the judgment
rendered on March 8, 1996 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 10, in Cebu City insofar as the RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the identity of the property in litis was no longer an

issue to be considered and determined because the parties did not
raise it at the pre-trial.

RULING:

YES. Regardless, the holding by both lower courts was proper and
correct. The non-inclusion in the pre-trial order barred the identity of
the property in litis as an issue, for it is basic that any factual issue
not included in the pre-trial order will not be heard and considered at
the trial, much less, on appeal. The parties had the obligation to
disclose during the pre-trial all the issues they intended to raise
during the trial, except those involving privileged or impeaching
matters, for the rule is that the definition of issues during the pre-trial
conference will bar the consideration of others, whether during trial
or on appeal. The basis of the exclusion is that the parties are
concluded by the delimitation of the issues in the pre-trial order
because they themselves agreed to it.