An order dismissing a case for the plaintiff's failure to appear at pre-trial under Rule 18, Section 5 of the Rules of Court is a final order, considered an adjudication on the merits and with prejudice unless otherwise stated, and the proper remedy against such dismissal is an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.

The case originated from two separate collection suits filed by the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Bureau of Customs (BOC), seeking to recover allegedly unpaid customs duties and taxes from Chiat Sing Cardboard Inc. and Filstar Textile Industrial Corporation (Filstar), along with individual defendants including the petitioners Faustino and Gloria Chingkoe. The basis for the collection suits was the alleged use of fake and spurious tax credit certificates originally issued to Filstar and subsequently used by Chiat Sing to settle import duties, and the fraudulent acquisition of tax credit certificates by Filstar itself.

• The Republic, represented by the BOC, filed two collection cases in the RTC Manila: one against Chiat Sing Cardboard Inc. for PhP 6,076,246 (Civil Case No. 02-102612) for using allegedly fake tax credit certificates acquired from Filstar Textile Industrial Corporation (Filstar), and another against Filstar and individual defendants including Faustino and Gloria Chingkoe for PhP 53,654,677 (Civil Case No. 02-102634) for fraudulently securing tax credit certificates. Chiat Sing filed a third-party complaint against Filstar and Faustino Chingkoe.
• The cases were consolidated and eventually raffled to RTC Branch 34.
• The cases were referred to mandatory mediation, which failed.
• Pre-trial was rescheduled multiple times: January 9, 2006 (reset as mediation report pending), February 15, 2006 (reset as mediation ongoing), March 17, 2006 (OSG failed to appear, reset), April 19, 2006 (OSG failed to appear again, warned of dismissal, reset), May 25, 2006 (judge on leave, reset), June 30, 2006 (OSG failed to appear, BOC lawyer present but unprepared and without authority, warned again, reset).
• On the July 14, 2006 pre-trial hearing, neither the OSG nor the BOC attended despite the previous warning.
• Upon motion of the defendants' counsels, the RTC issued an Order dismissing both civil cases due to the plaintiff's failure to appear and prosecute.
• The RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the respondent.

• The Court of Appeals erred in granting the Petition for Certiorari because the proper remedy against the RTC's order of dismissal was an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, as it was a final order adjudicating the case on the merits.
• The extraordinary writ of certiorari under Rule 65 is not available when appeal is the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
• The dismissal by the RTC was not based on mere technical grounds but was justified due to the respondent's repeated failure to appear at pre-trial and prosecute the case for an unreasonable length of time, despite stern warnings from the court.
• The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the cases with prejudice, as such dismissal is the default effect under Rule 18, Section 5 unless otherwise stated by the court.

• The trial court judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the two collection cases. (As argued in the CA petition).
• The RTC Order of dismissal did not specify if it was with or without prejudice, creating confusion and warranting certiorari review. (Implied from the SC's discussion).
• The collection cases involve a huge amount of tax collectibles (PhP 59.7 million total) and are imbued with public interest, thus procedural rules should be relaxed to avoid depriving the Republic of due process and preventing collection of taxes, the lifeblood of the government. (As argued/held by the CA).
• Certiorari was the necessary remedy because the trial court's swift dismissal without delving into the merits constituted a capricious, arbitrary, and whimsical exercise of power. (As held by the CA).

• Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy to assail the RTC's Order dismissing the cases for failure to appear at pre-trial.
• Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the consolidated collection cases due to the repeated failure of the plaintiff (Republic/BOC/OSG) to appear during the scheduled pre-trial hearings.
• Whether the dismissal of the cases by the RTC should be with or without prejudice.

• The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA Decision and Resolution, and reinstated the RTC's Order of Dismissal dated July 14, 2006, but modified the dismissal to be WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
• The Court ruled that the respondent erred in filing a Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65) before the CA. The RTC's dismissal order under Rule 18, Section 5 for failure to appear at pre-trial was a final order completely disposing of the case, making ordinary appeal (Rule 41) the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal.
• Rule 18, Section 5 explicitly states that a dismissal for the plaintiff's failure to appear at pre-trial shall be with prejudice unless the court orders otherwise. The RTC order did not state it was without prejudice, hence it was deemed an adjudication on the merits and with prejudice.
• The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The dismissal was justified due to the clear fault and negligence of the respondent (BOC and OSG), who repeatedly failed to attend pre-trial hearings over six settings despite ample notice, opportunity, and express warnings from the trial court.
• However, considering the huge amount of potential tax collectibles involved and the principle that taxes are the lifeblood of the government, the Court modified the RTC's dismissal order to be without prejudice, allowing the government the possibility to refile the cases.

• Remedy of Certiorari vs. Appeal (Rule 65 vs. Rule 41): Certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and the tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. It cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. This was applied to rule that the respondent used the wrong remedy (certiorari) when the correct one (appeal) was available against the RTC's final order of dismissal.
• Dismissal for Failure to Appear at Pre-Trial (Rule 18, Section 5, Rules of Court): The failure of the plaintiff to appear when required at pre-trial shall be cause for dismissal of the action, and such dismissal shall be with prejudice unless otherwise ordered by the court. This rule was applied to determine the nature and effect of the RTC's dismissal order and to affirm that appeal, not certiorari, was the proper recourse from such dismissal which is considered an adjudication on the merits.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: This refers to capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The Court found that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion, as its dismissal was based on the plaintiff's repeated, unexplained absences despite warnings, strictly following the Rules. The CA erred in finding otherwise.
• Importance of Pre-Trial: Pre-trial is mandatory and vital for the speedy disposition of cases, aiming to achieve amicable settlement, simplify issues, amend pleadings, obtain stipulations, limit witnesses, etc. It is not a mere technicality. This was emphasized to underscore the respondent's negligence in repeatedly failing to attend and the justification for the RTC's dismissal.
• Taxes as the Lifeblood of Government: This principle recognizes the essential role of tax collection in funding government operations and public services. It was invoked by the Court as the basis for modifying the dismissal order from with prejudice (the default under Rule 18, Sec. 5) to without prejudice, giving the government another chance to pursue the collection despite its counsel's negligence, due to the substantial amount and public interest involved.

• "The failure of the plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the next preceding section shall be cause for dismissal of the action. The dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court. x x x" (Quoting Rule 18, Sec. 5, Rules of Court)
• "A petition for certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, especially if one's own negligence or error in one's choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse. When an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the basis is grave abuse of discretion."
• "Well-settled is the rule that a dismissal for failure to appear at the pre-trial hearing is deemed an adjudication on the merits, unless otherwise stated in the order." (Citing Mondonedo v. Court of Appeals)
• "In view, however, of the huge amount of tax collectibles involved, and considering that taxes are the 'lifeblood of the government;' the dismissal of the case should be without prejudice."

• Mondonedo v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 113349, 1996): Cited to support the rule that dismissal for non-appearance at pre-trial is an adjudication on the merits unless otherwise stated, and the remedy is appeal, not certiorari.
• Corpuz v. Citibank, N.A. (G.R. Nos. 175677 & 177133, 2009): Cited as precedent establishing that the proper remedy for dismissal under Rule 18, Section 5 is ordinary appeal, not certiorari.
• Nepomuceno v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 126405, 1999): Cited for the definition of grave abuse of discretion required for certiorari.
• Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. v. DNG Realty and Development Corporation (G.R. No. 168672, 2010): Cited for the requirements for availing the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65.
• Rigor v. Tenth Division of the Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 167400, 2006): Cited for the principle that appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive remedies.
• Catly v. Navarro (G.R. No. 167239, 2010): Cited for the rule that certiorari will not prosper even if based on grave abuse of discretion when appeal is available.
• Tolentino v. Laurel (G.R. No. 181368, 2012): Cited extensively on the importance and mandatory nature of pre-trial and its objectives (simplification, expedition, etc.).
• The Philippine American Life & General Insurance Company v. Enario (Implicitly cited within Tolentino quote): Cited regarding the vital objective of pre-trial and that it cannot be taken for granted.
• Balatico v. Rodriguez (Implicitly cited within Tolentino quote): Cited regarding the significance of pre-trial.
• Tiu v. Middleton (Implicitly cited within Tolentino quote): Cited regarding the significance of pre-trial.

• Rules of Court, Rule 45: Basis for the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed before the Supreme Court.
• Rules of Court, Rule 65: Governs the special civil action for Certiorari, which the respondent improperly filed with the CA. Requirements discussed (no appeal/plain, speedy, adequate remedy; grave abuse of discretion).
• Rules of Court, Rule 41, Section 1: Defines when appeal is not available (implicitly referenced to show the RTC dismissal order was appealable). Basis for ordinary appeal, the proper remedy respondent should have taken.
• Rules of Court, Rule 18 (Pre-Trial), Section 2(a): Referenced regarding the mandatory nature of pre-trial.
• Rules of Court, Rule 18 (Pre-Trial), Section 5: Central provision discussed, stating that plaintiff's failure to appear at pre-trial is cause for dismissal with prejudice unless otherwise ordered.