P. 1
REAL BANK

REAL BANK

|Views: 20|Likes:
Published by Rafaela Siron

More info:

Published by: Rafaela Siron on Aug 13, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/21/2015

pdf

text

original

REAL BANK, INC., v. SAMSUNG MABUHAY CORPORATION G.R. No. 175862, 13 October 2010, FIRST DIVISION (Perez, J.

) It being daylight clear that the withdrawal of Samsung’s original counsel was sufficient as the same carried the stamp of approval of the client, the notice of mediation sent to Samsung’s original counsel was ineffectual as the same was sent at the time when such counsel had already validly withdrawn its representation. Corollarily, the absence of respondent Samsung during the scheduled mediation conference was excusable and justified. Conpinco Trading, a regular dealer of Samsung in Davao City, issued five (5) postdated hecks payable to the order of Samsung Mabuhay Electronics Corporation (Samsung). The three (3) of the five (5) checks were not remitted by Reynaldo Senson to Samsung. Instead, Senson, using an alias name, Edgardo Bacea, opened an account with Real Bank, Malolos, Bulacan branch under the account name of one Mabuhay Electronics Company (Mabuhay), a business entity in no way related to Samsung. Senson through the negligence of Real Bank, indorsed the checks and then deposited all the three (3) checks in the account of Mabuhay. Subsequently, Senson was able to withdraw. The checks were negligently credited by Real Bank to the account of Mabuhay, a single proprietorship, although the check was payable only to Samsung, a juridical entity, and to no one else. Despite Samsung’s demands, Real Bank ignored and refused to reimburse them with the value of the three (3) checks. Samsung filed a Complaint for damages against Real Bank. On 19 October 2000, the counsel of Samsung filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance with the conformity of Samsung. Meanwhile, the trial court issued an Order requiring both to appear in a mediation proceeding. This Order of the trial court was sent to Samsung’s former counsel, V.E. Del Rosario and Partners which had at that time already filed a notice of withdrawal of appearance. The complaint of Samsung was dismissed for failure to appear at the mediation conference. It was challenged by Samsung’s new counsel alleging that the dismissal is improper and inappropriate as it was not notified of the scheduled mediation conference. Besides, the notice of the scheduled mediation was sent to the previous counsel of Samsung who had already withdrawn and not to the new lawyers. Samsung then filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. It rendered a decision in favor of Samsung. ISSUE: Whether the RTC acted properly in dismissing Civil Case for failure on the part of Samsung to appear on the scheduled mediation conference. HELD: Petition DENIED. In Senarlo v. Judge Paderanga, the Court accentuated that mediation is part of pre-trial and failure of the plaintiff to appear thereat merits sanction on the part of the absent party. This court held: A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA dated 16 October 2001, otherwise known as the Second Revised Guidelines for the Implementation of Mediation Proceedings and

V. However. promptly and religiously attended the hearings set by the RTC. the absence of respondent Samsung during the scheduled mediation conference was excusable and justified. 97-86265. A. the notice of mediation sent to 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. till then. respondent Samsung exhibited diligence and dispatch in prosecuting its case against petitioner Real Bank. Thus. Besides. it is uncontroverted that the withdrawal of Samsung’s original counsel. Except for the lone instance. In fact.’s argument that respondent Samsung was negligent in the conduct of its case. Del Rosario and Partners on 19 October 2000. It being daylight clear that the withdrawal of Samsung’s original counsel was sufficient as the same carried the stamp of approval of the client.Section 5. the ruling in Senarlo will not resolve the present case where the basic issue is whether or not Samsung’s non-appearance at the mediation proceedings is justifiable from the records In this case. the trial court erroneously dismissed the case. would not be prejudiced should the RTC proceed with Civil Case as it is not stripped of any affirmative defenses nor deprived of due process of law. No. Real Bank. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA considers mediation a part of pre-trial and provides sanctions for the absent party: Under Rule 18. Inc. Therefore. failure of the plaintiff to appear at pre-trial shall be cause for dismissal of the action. respondent Samsung had. Inc. reasonable as already shown.M. the ends of justice and fairness would be best served if the parties are given the full opportunity to thresh out the real issues in a full blown trial.E. Rule 18 of the Rules of Court grant judges the discretion to dismiss an action for failure of the plaintiff to appear at mediation proceedings. 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. Accordingly. . We cannot sustain petitioner Real Bank. Corollarily. Section 5 of the Rules of Court. was with the client’s consent. 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. Inc. of absence during the scheduled mediation conference on 3 April 2001.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->