370 Real Bank, Inc. v. Samsung Mabuhay Corp

Real Bank, Inc. v. Samsung Mabuhay Corp.
Pre-Trial | October 13, 2010 | Perez, J.
SUMMARY: In a Complaint for Damages filed by Samsung against Real Bank which was set for a mediation
conference, Samsung failed to appear because the order requiring Samsung to appear was sent to its former counsel. The
trial court dismissed the case for Samsung’s failure to appear at the said conference. The SC remanded the case back to
the TC.
DOCTRINE: Under the first sentence of Section 26, the withdrawal of counsel with the conformity of the client is
completed once the same is filed in court. No further action thereon by the court is needed other than the mechanical act
of the Clerk of Court of entering the name of the new counsel in the docket and of giving written notice thereof to the
adverse party.
FACTS OF THE CASE:

Parties Petitioner: Real Bank, Inc.
Respondent: Samsung Mabuhay Corporation
 Initially, Samsung Mabuhay Corp. file a Complaint for Damages against Real Bank, Inc.
o The background of which involved checks supposedly for Samsung Mabuhay Corp. being deposited by a
certain Reynaldo A. Senson (alias Edgardo Bacea) who deposited such checks into his account with Real
Bank, Inc.
 Real Bank, Inc. filed its Answer on 23 February 1998, to which a Reply was filed by respondent Samsung on 5
March 1998.
 On 12 March 1998, Samsung filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Set Case for Pre-Trial.
 Judge Infante of RTC Br. 9 of Manila set the case for pre-trial on 25 June 1998.
 On 26 May 1998, Real Bank, Inc. filed a Motion to Admit Third Party Complaint against Senson.
 On 22 June 1998, Samsung filed its Pre-Trial Brief.
 Pre-trial was rescheduled and reset to 10 September 1998 on motion of Real Bank due to its prior motion still
pending resolution.
 Finally, on 22 February 1999, the trial court issued an Order granting Real Bank’s Motion to Admit Third Party
Complaint.
 Real Bank also filed a Motion to Serve Summons by Publication on Senson, which Judge Infante granted.
 On 19 October 2000, counsel for Samsung filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance with conformity of
Samsung.
 On 7 March 2001, the TC issued an Order requiring both Real Bank, Inc. and Samsung to appear in a mediation
proceeding set on 3 April 2001, such order being sent to Samsung’s former counsel.
o Mediation proceedings took place as scheduled, with Samsung not appearing.
 On 4 June 2001, the new counsel of Samsung entered its appearance, which was filed and received by the court
on 6 June 2001.
 Subsequently, the case was re-raffled to RTC Br. 20 of Manila.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
MTC/RTC Judge Umali of Br. 20 dismissed the complaint for damages of
Samsung for failure to appear at the mediation conference.
Samsung’s new counsel challenged the Order dated 5 June

2002 in a Motion for Reconsideration 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.
Court of Appeals Samsung then filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
The Court of Appeals rendered a decision in favor of Samsung.
Supreme Court Petition for Review on Certiorari
ISSUES & RATIO:
W/N the trial court correctly dismissed the case for failure of Samsung Mabuhay Corp. to appear at the scheduled
mediation conference - NO.
 In Senarlo v. Judge Paderanga, the SC 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.
o However, the ruling in Senarlo will not resolve the present case where the basic issue is whether or not
respondent’s Samsung non-appearance at the mediation proceedings is justifiable from the records.
 Under the first sentence of Section 26, the withdrawal of counsel with the conformity of the client is completed
once the same is filed in court. No further action thereon by the court is needed other than the mechanical act of
the Clerk of Court of entering the name of the new counsel in the docket and of giving written notice thereof to
the adverse party.
 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 is 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
Samsung during the scheduled mediation conference was excusable and justified. Therefore, the trial court
erroneously dismissed Samsung’s complaint.
DISPOSITIVE:

370 Real Bank, Inc. v. Samsung Mabuhay Corp

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

370 Real Bank, Inc. v. Samsung Mabuhay Corp

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

370 Real Bank, Inc. v. Samsung Mabuhay Corp

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Real Bank, Inc. v. Samsung Mabuhay Corp.

Pre-Trial | October 13, 2010 | Perez, J.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Samsung’s new counsel challenged the Order dated 5 June

The Court of Appeals rendered a decision in favor of Samsung.

Supreme Court Petition for Review on Certiorari

ISSUES & RATIO:

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.