REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 195
PARAÑAQUE CITY

MULTIFREIGHT CONSOLIDATOR
SYSTEM INC.,,
Plaintiffs, Civil Case No: 2017-173
For: Specific Performance
with prayer for damages
-versus-

GOODYEAR CONTAINER CORP./

SITC CONTAINER LINES CO. LTD,
Defendants.
x--------------------------------------x

MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant, thru counsel and unto this Honorable Court most

respectfully state that:

1. The Honorable Court issued an Order dated June 29, 2018

DISMISSING Civil Case No. 2017-173 for Failure of the Plaintiff
to prosecute for unreasonable length of time Pursuant to Section
3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court. A copy of the said Order is herein
attached and made an integral part hereof as Annex “A”;

2. On August 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion (With Sincerest

Apologies to the Honorable Court and Parties) requesting for
“consideration” and setting aside the said Order of this
Honorable Court. A copy of the Motion is herein attached and
made an integral part hereof as Annex “B”;

3. Plaintiff filed said Motion only after FORTY FIVE (45) DAYS upon
the dismissal of the case;

4. It is most respectfully submitted that the Order DISMISSING Civil

Case No. 2017-173 of this Honorable Court has already attained
finality and any further proceeding related to the said case will
unduly prejudice the rights of the Defendants;

5. Under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of

judgment, a decision that has acquired finality becomes
immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any
respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous
 conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court
that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land. Any act which
violates this principle must immediately be struck down (Facura
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 166495, February 16, 2011);

6. It is most respectfully submitted that the said Motion (With

Sincerest Apologies to the Honorable Court and Parties) filed
by the Plaintiff has no basis in law nor is it provided for under the
Rules of Court;

7. It is clear from the caption and words used by the Plaintiff in the
said Motion were cleverly crafted, using the word
“CONSIDERATION” instead of “RECONSIDERATION” in its
prayer, knowing that a motion for reconsideration to be filed is
already out of date;

8. Assuming arguendo that the said Motion is to be considered as a

Motion for Reconsideration, the same was filed beyond the
Reglementary period and thus cannot be given due course,
otherwise, granting the same would unjustly violate the rights of
the Defendants;

9. It is most respectfully reiterated that the Civil Case 2017-173 was

DISMISSED on the ground of Failure to Prosecute for
Unreasonable length of time. Further actions made by the Plaintiff
after the Finality of the Judgment has no basis in law and under
the rules, or otherwise completely and willfully disregard the
Rules of Court.

10. This pattern of conduct on the part of the Plaintiff is a clear

showing that it does not respect the authority of this Honorable
Court nor is it interested in pursuing its cause of action. The
Plaintiff continues to delay the proceeding by belatedly filing its
pleadings, unduly vexing and wasting the resources of both this
Honorable Court and the other parties;

11. A single lapse on the part a party in following the

procedural rules may be forgiven to afford substantial justice, but
not when the party has repeatedly and inordinately disregarded
the rules;

12. Allowing the Plaintiff any further relief in an action where

the decision has already attained finality and where it is clear that
the Plaintiff is uninterested in pursuing its cause of action, will
undoubtedly cause further delay, wasting this Honorable Courts
resources and clogging its dockets;
13. It is most respectfully submitted that any continuance of a
proceeding which has already attained finality will result to a Void
Judgment, thus:

Nature of a void judgment

A void judgment is no judgment at all in legal contemplation. In

Canero v. University of the Philippines we held that-

x x x A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded to a

valid judgment, but may be entirely disregarded or declared
inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to
it. It has no legal or binding effect or efficacy for any purpose or at
any place. It cannot affect, impair or create rights. It is not entitled
to enforcement and is, ordinarily, no protection to those who seek
to enforce. In other words, a void judgment is regarded as a
nullity, and the situation is the same as it would be if there was no
judgment. x x x

A judgment rendered without jurisdiction is a void judgment. This

want of jurisdiction may pertain to lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter or over the person of one of the parties.

A void judgment may also arise from the tribunal's act

constituting grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction. In Yu v. Judge Reyes-Carpio, we explained-

The term "grave abuse of discretion" has a specific meaning. An

act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave
abuse of discretion when such act is done in a "capricious or
whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction." x x x [T]he use of a petition for certiorari is
restricted only to "truly extraordinary cases wherein the act of the
lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void" x x x.

In Guevarra v. Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, we further

explained-

x x x However, if the Sandiganbayan acts in excess or lack of

jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
excess or lack of jurisdiction in dismissing a criminal case, the
dismissal is null and void. A tribunal acts without jurisdiction if it
does not have the legal power to determine the case; there is
excess of jurisdiction where a tribunal, being clothed with the
power to determine the case, oversteps its authority as
determined by law. A void judgment or order has no legal and
 binding effect, force or efficacy for any purpose. In contemplation
of law, it is nonexistent. Such judgment or order may be resisted
in any action or proceeding whenever it is involved. x x x (RENE
H. IMPERIAL and NIDSLAND RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION v. HON. EDGAR L. ARMES, Presiding Judge of
Branch 4, Regional Trial Court, 5th Judicial Region, Legazpi
City and ALFONSO B. CRUZ, JR., G.R. No. 178842, January 30,
2017)

14. It is most respectfully submitted that Defendant

GOODYEAR CONTAINER CORP. has already made PAYMENT to
SITC CONTAINER LINES CO. LTD. in the amount of ONE
HUNDRED EIGHTY ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED PESOS
(P181,400.00), evidenced by Check Voucher No. 009921 issued
by Goodyear Container Corp. with SITC Container Lines Co. LTD.
as payee, dated September 26, 2017 and an Official Receipt No.
0232200 issued by SITC Container Lines Co. LTD. in favor of
Goodyear Container Corp. dated October 10, 2017. Copies of the
Check Voucher and Official Receipt is herein attached and made
an integral part hereof as Annex “C” and Annex “D,” respectively;

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court to DISMISS the complaint against the Defendant
GOODYEAR CONTAINER CORP.

Other just and equitable remedies are likewise prayed for.

Valenzuela City. September 17, 2018.

ATTY. WILLIAM N. REYES

Counsel for the Defendant -
GOODYEAR CONTAINER CORP.
27 Little Baguio Street, Marulas,
Valenzuela City
Roll No. 47608
PTR No. 5081961 – January 3, 2018
IBP No. 1080940 CALMANA -
Nov. 9, 2017
MCLE Compliance No. V–0016771-
March 2, 2016
TIN: 111-866-028

NOTICE OF HEARING

AMOROSO AMOROSO AND ASSOCIATES

LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Plaintiff
Rm. 506 Merchant Square Condominium
E. Rodriguez Sr. Ave. cor. Mabolo St.,
New Manila, Quezon City

SITC CONTAINER LINES CO. LTD

7th Floor Tower A Two-Ecom Center Bayshore Avenue,
Mall of Asia Complex, Pasay City

Greetings:

Please submit the foregoing for the consideration and approval of

this Honorable Court at the soonest possible time or on _____________ at
__________________ in the morning.

ATTY. WILLIAM N. REYES

EXPLANATION

COPY FURNISHED

AMOROSO AMOROSO AND ASSOCIATES

LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Plaintiff
Rm. 506 Merchant Square Condominium
E. Rodriguez Sr. Ave. cor. Mabolo St.,
New Manila, Quezon City

SITC CONTAINER LINES CO. LTD

7th Floor Tower A Two-Ecom Center Bayshore Avenue,
Mall of Asia Complex, Pasay City