Case Digest G.R. No. 175862

FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 175862 October 13, 2010

REAL BANK, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
SAMSUNG MABUHAY CORPORATION, Respondent.
FACTS:
Allegedly due to the Negligence of herein petitioner, Real Bank, a great amount of the money was withdrawn by Reynaldo
Senson, causing damage to herein respondent, Samsung Mabuhay Corporation. Thus, respondent instituted a case for
damages against herein petitioner. Petitioner Real Bank, Inc. filed its Answer 6 on 23 February 1998, to which a Reply 7 was filed
by respondent Samsung on 5 March 1998.
On 12 March 1998, respondent Samsung filed an Ex-Parte Motion To Set Case for Pre-Trial, asking that the case be set for pre-
trial. In a notice dated 24 March 1998, Judge Infante of RTC, Br. 9 of Manila, set the case for pre-trial on 25 June 1998.
Petitioner Real Bank, Inc. filed on 26 May 1998 a Motion to Admit Third Party Complaint against Reynaldo A. Senson alias
Edgardo Bacea, to which was attached the Third Party Complaint.
Respondent filed its pre-trial brief and the Pre-trial was reset to July 17, 1998 upon motion of the petitioner because its Motion to
Admit Third Party Complaint was still pending resolution.
The Pre-trial was subsequently reset again because of the same reason.
On February 22, 1999, the Motion was granted. Thus, summons were issued to third-party defendant, Senson.
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss third-party complaint for failure of the petitioner to prosecute its case and Motion to Set the
Case for Pre-trial. While, petitioner filed a Motion to Serve Summons by Publication on Senson.
The trial court required both petitioner Real Bank, Inc. and respondent Samsung to appear in a mediation proceeding set on 3
April 2001. This Order of the trial court was sent to respondent Samsung’s former counsel, V.E. Del Rosario and Partners which
had at that time already filed a notice of withdrawal of appearance.
The mediation proceedings took place as scheduled on 3 April 2001 and Mediator Tammy Ann C. Reyes, who handled the
mediation proceedings submitted her report to the Court stating therein that no action was taken on the case referred for
mediation because respondent Samsung failed to appear.
Consequently, the complaint of the respondent was ordered dismissed for its failure to appear at the Mediation Conference.
Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied.
Respondent Samsung then filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court docketed
as CA-G.R. SP No. 73188. It was granted by the CA.
Petitioner Real Bank, Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent’s failure to attend the mediation conference is justifiable.
HELD:
Yes. The Court ruled that the absence of respondent Samsung during the scheduled mediation conference was excusable and
justified. In this case, it is uncontroverted that the withdrawal of respondent Samsung’s original counsel, V.E. Del Rosario and
Partners on 19 October 2000, was with the client’s consent. Thus, no approval thereof by the trial court was required because a
court’s approval is indispensable only if the withdrawal is without the client’s consent. It being daylight clear that the withdrawal of
respondent Samsung’s original counsel was sufficient as the same carried the stamp of approval of the client, the notice of
mediation sent to respondent DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW 408 Samsung’s original counsel was
ineffectual as the same was sent at the time when such counsel had already validly withdrawn its representation.
The calendar of hearings document the fact that respondent Samsung has been willing and able to prosecute its case. Except for
the lone instance, reasonable as already shown, of absence during the scheduled mediation conference on 3 April 2001,
respondent Samsung had, till then, promptly and religiously attended the hearings set by the RTC. In fact, respondent Samsung
exhibited diligence and dispatch in prosecuting its case against petitioner Real Bank, Inc. by immediately moving to set the case
for pre-trial after it had filed its reply and momently filing a motion for reconsideration of the RTC Order dismissing Civil Case No.
97-86265.

Case Digest G.R. No. 175862

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest G.R. No. 175862

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest G.R. No. 175862

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 175862 October 13, 2010

Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied.

Whether or not respondent’s failure to attend the mediation conference is justifiable.

You might also like