SHIMIZU PHILIPPINES CONTRACTORS, INC. vs MAGSALIN G.R. No. 170026, June 20, 2012 RION, J. !ACTS" Petitioner claims that Leticia Magsalin had breached their subcontract agreement for the supply, delivery, installation and nishing of the tiles in certain oors in petitioner’s condominium condominium project. The agreement as terminated.
!ue to Magsalin’s refusal to return unli"uidated advance payment and other monetary liabilities, petitioner sent a notice to respondent #$% &nsurance demanding damages pursuant to the bonds the former had issued for the subcontract. Petitioner Petitioner led a complaint for actual damages for breach of contract against Magsalin and #$%. #$% as duly served ith summons. 'ith respect to Magsalin, despite e(orts, their ne addresses could not be determined. #$% led a motion to dismiss but as denied. Li)eise, M* as denied. #$% as obliged to le an anser. anser . Petitioner Petitioner led a motion for leave to serve summons on respondent respondent Magsalin by ay of publication. publication. Then, the petitioner led its reply to #$% &nsurance’s anser. #$% led a motion for leave of court to le a third+party complaint. aetiong, $. $arcia and -. $arcia ere named as third+party defendants. #$% claims that the three had eecuted counter+guaranties over bonds it eecuted for the subcontract subcontract / Magsalin and, hence, should be held jointly and severally liable *T- admitted the third+party complaint and denied the motion to serve summons by publication on the ground that the action against respondent Magsalin as in personam. personam. *T- issued a notice setting the case for hearing. #$% led a motion to cancel the hearing on the ground that the third+party defendants had not yet led their anser . The motion as granted. 0f the three third+party defendants, only aetiong led an anser, the o1cer’s returns on the summons to the $arcias state that both could not be located at their given addresses. Petitioner as not served / aetiong’s anser. #or failure of petitioner to prosecute, *T- dismissed the case. *T- denied the petitioner’s M* prompting prompting the latter to elevate its case to the -2 via a via a *ule 34 petition for revie. -2 dismissed the appeal on the ground of lac) of jurisdiction. The appeal raised a pure pure "uestion of la as it did not dispute the proceedings before the issuance of the !ecember 45, 6778 dismissal order. order. Petitioner Petitioner thus led the present petition for revie on certiorari. certiorari. Issues" '/9 T:; L0';* -0%*T ;**;! &9 !;-L2*&9$ T:2T P;T&T&09;* #2&L;! T0 P*0<;-%T; T:; -2<; '/9 T:; 2PP;LL2T; -0%*T :2< =%*&0L &9>0L>; >; 0T: ?%;&!;9T T:2T T:; L0';* -0%*T’< !&oid, the !ecember 45, 6778 dismissal order shos that it is an un"ualied order and, as such, is deemed to be a dismissal ith prejudice.
!ismissals of actions for failure of the plainti( to prosecute is authori@ed under
clearly and distinctly the facts and the la on hich it is based, signed by him, and led ith the cler) of the court.D The !ecember 45, 6778 dismissal order clearly violates this rule for its failure to disclose ho and hy the petitioner failed to prosecute its complaint. 2 trial court should alays specify the reasons for a complaint’s dismissal so that on appeal, the revieing court can readily determine the prima facie justication for the dismissal There as a denial of due process. ;lementary due process demands that the parties to a litigation be given information on ho the case as decided, as ell as an eplanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court. 'here the reasons are absent, a decision has absolutely nothing to support it and is thus a nullity. The appeal as properly led under *ule 34 of the *ules of -ourtE &n 0lave vs. Mistas, among the critical factual "uestions as hether, based on the records, there had been factual basis for the dismissal of the subject complaint. This same "uestion is particularly signicant in the present case given that the order appealed does not even indicate the factual basis for the dismissal of the case. !ue to the absence of any stated factual basis, and despite the admissions of the parties, the -2 still had to delve into the records to chec) hether facts to justify the prejudicial dismissal even eist.
The dismissal of the case is not supported by the facts of the caseE The folloing events ere chronologically proimate to the dismissal of -ivil -ase 9o. 76+3FFE BaD the court admitted #$% &nsurance’s third-party complaintG BbD the trial court cancelled hearing upon #$% &nsurance’s motionG and BcD aetiong led his Answer to the third-party complaint but did not serve it upon the petitioner . 9one of these events s"uare ith the grounds specied by
