499 Phil. 384
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
“When called for pre-trial conference, defendants and counsel appeared and manifested that they are ready. On the other hand, neither the representative of the heirs of the late Flor Tungpalan nor their counsel, Atty. Ruben Abarquez, appeared despite the fact that they were duly notified of the notice of pre-trial as shown by the return indicating that they received copy of said notice as early as February 12, 1993.One (1) year and seven (7) months later, or on October 6, 1994, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. It was later amended on October 14, 1994, accompanied by an affidavit of merit executed by one of the heirs. On November 15, 1994, the trial court issued an Order granting the motion “in the higher interest of justice” revoking its Order of March 8, 1993. The pre-trial conference was reset to December 19, 1994.
On motion, therefore, of defendants’ counsel, the plaintiffs are declared non-suited and their complaint is ordered DISMISSED. Likewise, the counterclaims interposed by the defendants in their answer are ordered DISMISSED for being compulsory in nature and therefore cannot be the subject of an independent adjudication.
SO ORDERED.”
In sum, the issue to be resolved is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s Order dated December 22, 1994 reinstating its Order dated March 8, 1993 declaring the petitioners non-suited and dismissing their complaint.I
THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT IT WAS EQUITABLY IMPROPER FOR THE LOWER COURT TO ISSUE THE ASSAILED ORDER (ANNEX S) DATED DECEMBER 22, 1994 REVOKING THE 15 NOVEMBER 1994 ORDER FOR ALLEGED LACK OF JURISDICTION.II
THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE GROSS INEXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE OF PETITIONERS’ FORMER COUNSEL, ATTY. RUBEN V. ABARQUEZ DOES NOT BIND THE PETITIONERS, THEN PLAINTIFFS IN THE LOWER COURT IN CIVIL CASE NO. 21345-82.III
THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN NOT ORDERING THE LOWER COURT TO HEAR THE CASE ON THE MERITS.
“Plaintiffs, as well as their counsel, received separate copies of the Order dated March 8, 1993 on May 14, 1993. The period to appeal said Order, therefore, expired on May 29, 1993. As no appeal was filed by the plaintiffs, consequently, the Order of March 8, 1993 became final on May 29, 1993. This has already been clarified in the case of Munez vs. CA, L-46010, July 23, 1987, wherein it was held:Failure to interpose an appeal within the reglementary period renders an order or decision final and executory unless a party files a motion for reconsideration within the 15-day reglementary period. The law grants an aggrieved party a period of fifteen (15) days from his receipt of the court’s decision or order disposing of the action or proceeding to appeal or move to reconsider the same. After the lapse of the fifteen-day period, an order becomes final and executory and is beyond the power or jurisdiction of the court which rendered it to further amend or revoke.[1] The court loses jurisdiction over the case and not even an appellate court would have the power to review a judgment that has acquired finality.[2] Otherwise, there would be no end to litigation and would set to naught the main role of courts of justice which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by setting justiciable controversies with finality.[3]‘Finality of judgment, for purposes of appeal or execution, takes place by operation of law by the lapse of the 15 days or 30 days period as the case may be.’Since the Order of this Court dated March 8, 1993 dismissing the case was received by the counsel for the plaintiffs and the period to appeal or file a motion for reconsideration has already lapsed, this Court, therefore, as correctly pointed out by the defendants, had no more jurisdiction to issue the Order dated November 15, 1994. To hold otherwise might open the door for administrative sanctions against the Presiding Judge of this Court.
In view of the foregoing, the Order of this Court dated November 15, 1994 revoking the Order dated March 8, 1993 is hereby set aside, with finality.”
“Failure to prosecute – If plaintiff fails to appear at the time of the trial, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these rules or any other order of the court, the action may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court’s own motion. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise provided by the court.”WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The challenged Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.The Order of March 8, 1993 does not state that the dismissal of the complaint is without prejudice. Hence, such dismissal operates as a bar to the filing of another action alleging the same cause of action.