34. ANSON TRADE CENTER VS.

PACIFIC BANKING
injurious to respondent because it already paid docket fees. With the case’s
GR No. 179999| March 17, 2009 | Rule 18 – Pre-Trial | Prisha Cruz
dismissal, the fees would be forfeited.

Petitioner: ANSON TRADE CENTER, INC., ANSON EMPORIUM FACTS:

CORPORATION and TEDDY KENG SE CHEN
Respondents: PACIFIC BANKING CORPORATION, Represented by Its • Petitioners ATCI and AEC are corporations engaged in retail and/or
Liquidator, the President of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation wholesale general merchandising. Petitioner Chen is the Vice Head of
the commercial entities. Respondent is a closed banking institution
Recit-Ready Facts: undergoing liquidation by the Philippine Deposit Insurance
Petitioners obtained loans from respondent. Eventually, petitioners defaulted on Corporation (PDIC).
their loans. Respondent filed a collection case against petitioners. The RTC set • Petitioners ATCI and AEC obtained several loans from respondent.
two pre-trial conferences, one on April 4, 2005, where all parties were present, As security, petitioner Chen executed two Continuing Suretyship
and on October 10, 2005, where respondent failed to attend. Petitioners moved Agreements.
for dismissal of the case on the ground of non-appearance of respondent at the
• Eventually, petitioners defaulted on their loans. As such, respondent
pre-trial. RTC granted the motion, but the CA reversed the RTC’s Order.
made several demands for payment, to no avail. Respondent filed a
Petitioner argues that appearance of the parties during the pre-trial is
collection case against petitioners.
mandatory. Respondent argues that the Rules must be relaxed because its
• After the RTC denied the Motions to Dismiss filed by petitioners, it set
absence was not intentional.
a pre-trial conference on April 4, 2005. All parties were present at the
pre-trial where the RTC explored the possibility of an amicable
Doctrine: According to Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, while it is the duty of the
settlement by referring the case to the Philippine Mediation Center for
parties and their counsel to appear at the pre-trial, the non-appearance of a
arbitration. The proceedings, however, were unsuccessful.
party may be excused only if a valid cause is shown therefor. Further, in the
• To simplify the issues to be threshed out in the trial, another pre-trial
absence of a pattern or scheme to delay the disposition of the case or a wanton
conference was scheduled on October 10, 2005. Respondent
failure to observe the mandatory requirement of the rules, courts should decide
failed to attend.
to dispense rather than wield their authority to dismiss.
• Petitioners moved for dismissal of the case on the ground of non-
appearance of respondent at the pre-trial, which was granted by the
Application to the case:
RTC. The CA reversed the RTC’s Order.
While respondents failed to attend the pre-trial conference, its absence is not
intentional. The Monetary Board ordered the closure of respondent by reason
Contentious Points/Arguments
of insolvency, and it has since been represented by its liquidator PDIC in all its
undertakings. Still in the course of the liquidation of respondent, its liquidator Petitioners – ATCI, AEC, and Respondent – Pacific Banking
PDIC was reorganized in the late 2004 to early 2005. The four departments in Chen Corporation
the PDIC handling litigation were reduced to one, with the new Litigation
Department having only four in-house counsels who assumed thousands of Appearance of the parties during Its absence was not intentional. Its
cases arising from the closure by the Monetary Board of more than 400 banks. pre-trial is mandatory. Absence of liquidator, PDIC, was undergoing a
It is understandable how the notice for the pre-trial conference scheduled on respondent constitutes a serious reorganization resulting in trimming
October 10, 2005 could be lost or overlooked, as the PDIC was still coping and procedural blunder that merits the down of the departments handling
adjusting with the changes resulting from its reorganization. Also, respondent is dismissal of its case. litigation work from four to one and
already insolvent and undergoing liquidation. The re-filing of the case would be lack of manpower. Thus, the Rules
must be relaxed if it will cause
 In the absence of a pattern or scheme to delay the disposition of the case or a
irreparable damage to a party-
wanton failure to observe the mandatory requirement of the rules, courts
litigant and to promote the ends of
should decide to dispense rather than wield their authority to dismiss.
justice.

Moreover, respondent is already insolvent and undergoing liquidation. The re-

ISSUES: filing of the case would be injurious to respondent because it already paid
docket fees. With the case’s dismissal, the fees would be forfeited.
W/N the RTC was correct in dismissing the case for failure of respondent to
appear at the pre-trial conference – NO, RTC was not correct. The plain injunction of Section 2 of Rule 1 is that the "rules shall be liberally
construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining"
RATIO: not only "speedy" but more imperatively, "just . . . and inexpensive
determination of every action and proceeding."
The RTC was not correct in dismissing the case because non-
appearance at the pre-trial may be excused if a valid cause is shown. Disposition of the Court
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review on
Relevant Laws/Rules Certiorari is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 31 May 2007 and
Resolution dated 16 October 2007 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
According to Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, while it is the duty of the parties
Costs against the petitioners.
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.

Respondents received notice of the pre-trial conference scheduled on October

10, 2005, but it failed to attend the same. Nevertheless, respondent did not
intentionally snub the pre-trial conference.

The Monetary Board ordered the closure of respondent by reason of

insolvency, and it has since been represented by its liquidator PDIC in all its
undertakings. Still in the course of the liquidation of respondent, its liquidator
PDIC was reorganized in the late 2004 to early 2005. The four departments in
the PDIC handling litigation were reduced to one, with the new Litigation
Department having only four in-house counsels who assumed thousands of
cases arising from the closure by the Monetary Board of more than 400 banks.
It is understandable how the notice for the pre-trial conference scheduled on
October 10, 2005 could be lost or overlooked, as the PDIC was still coping and
adjusting with the changes resulting from its reorganization.

Further, respondent was not remiss in its duties to prosecute its case.
Respondent also promptly and religiously attended the hearings set by the
RTC. Further, when the RTC did not immediately act on the Motions to Dismiss
of petitioners, respondent filed two Motions to Resolve.