EUFEMIA VDA. DE AGATEP V. ROBERTA RODRIGUEZ AND NATALIA AGUINALDO VDA. DE LIM
Facts: o
This case is about a dispute involving a parcel of land, which
was previously owned by Natalia Vda. De Lim. o
To secure the loan obtained by Lim from PNB, she mortgaged
the subject property to the said bank. o
Upon failure of Lim to pay her loan, PNB foreclosed the
property and sold it at public auction, to which it was the auction, PNB was the highest bidder. o
So, Lim’s name was cancelled in the TCT of the property and a
new one was issued in the n ame of PNB. o
Meanwhile, while the mortgage was in effect, Lim sold the
subject property to Agatep. o
Then on July 1992, PNB included the subject lot as part of its
acquired assets for sale. And a year later, the subject lot was sold to Roberta Rodriguez, Agatep’s daughter and a new TCT was issued in her name. o
Upon knowing this, Agatep filed a Complaint for reconveyance
and/or damages for the RTC against Rodrguez, et al. o
The complaint was later amended to include PNB as party-
defendant. o
RTC dismissed the amended complaint for failure of Agatep to
file her Pre-Trial Brief.
ISSUES:
1. WON another pre-trial and another pre-trial brief is required when the complaint is amended to implead another defendant. YES. 2. WON the case should be dismissed for failure of Agatep to file her pre-trial brief. YES. 3. WON the court should decide a case consistent with those agreed upon during the pre-trial conference. NO.
RULINGS: 1. YES, the Court in this case, ruled that another p re-trial and pre-trial brief is required. o As a general rule, when a pre-trial has been terminated or completed, a second pre-trial cannot be granted and that the remedy instead is to proceed to trial, except when the parties themselves voluntarily agreed that the case be set anew for a pre-trial. In this case, the Court presented another exception and that is o when there exist additional or separate causes of action alleged in an amended complaint.
Applying the rule in this case, Agatep, upon amending the complaint to include PNB as party-defendant, she had a separate cause of action against PNB. o A separate cause of action necessarily means additional cause of action. Moreover, the defenses adopted by PNB are completely different from the defenses of Lim and Rodriguez, demanding a separate determination of the matters enumerated under Section 6, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court insofar as PNB and Agatep are concerned. o Therefore the Court ruled that the dismissal of the amended complaint against PNB for failure of petitioner to file her pre-trial brief by the RTC was correct. (PNB must prove that it lawfully foreclosured and acquired) (LIM&Rodriguez: must prove that the mortgage is binding on Agatep) 2. YES. The case should be dismissed for failure of Agatep to file a pretrial brief In the present case, the Court pointed out the absence of both o Agatep and her counsel during the scheduled pre-trial conference of the amended complaint impleading PNB. Under the Rules, such absence is an additional ground to dismiss the action against PNB. o Whether an order of dismissal should be maintained under the circumstances of a particular case or whether it should be set aside depends on the sound discretion of the trial court. Considering the circumstances established on record in the instant case, the Court finds no cogent reason to set aside the order of the RTC dismissing the complaint of petitioner against PNB. o
3. No, the Court ruled that a pre-trial order is not meant to be a detailed catalogue of each and every issue that is to be or may be taken up during the trial. Issues that are impliedly included therein or may be inferred o therefrom by necessary implication are as much important in the pre-trial order as those that are expressly stipulated. o In this case, issues enumerated in the Pre-Trial Order of the RTC would show that the complete and proper r esolution of these issues would necessarily include all other matters relevant in determining whether Agatep is the lawful owner of the subject lot and thus, entitled to reconveyance. It would be illogical not to discuss the whether the mortgage o contract between Lim and PNB is binding on Agatep and her husband or whether PNB there was lawful foreclosure and acquisition the subject property as the resolution of these issues would determine whether there were no impediments in Agatep and her husband in acquiring the subject lot.
