Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
*
G.R. No. 152878. May 5, 2003.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
593
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015bf5426fc46672295c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/23
5/11/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME402
594
595
time or (c) if he does not comply with the rules or any order of the
court. We also find nothing in the record to support respondent
Uys conclusion that petitioner has been mercilessly delaying the
prosecution of Civil Case No. 99518 to warrant its dismissal. A
complaint may be dismissed due to plaintiffs fault: (a) if he fails
to appear during a scheduled trial, especially on the date for the
presentation of his evidence in chief, or when so required at the
pretrial (b) if he neglects to prosecute his action for an
unreasonable length of time or (c) if he does not comply with the
rules or any order of the court. None of these was obtaining in the
civil case.
Same Same To constitute a sufficient ground for dismissal,
the inattention of plaintiff to pursue his cause must not only be
prolonged but also be unnecessary and dilatory resulting in the
trifling of judicial processes. Admittedly, delay took place in this
case but it was not an interruption that should have entailed the
dismissal of the complaint even if such was designated as without
prejudice. To constitute a sufficient ground for dismissal, the
inattention of plaintiff to pursue his cause must not only be
prolonged but also be unnecessary and dilatory resulting in the
trifling of judicial processes. In the instant case, the adjournment
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015bf5426fc46672295c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/23
5/11/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME402
was not only fleeting as it lasted less than six (6) months but was
also done in good faith to accommodate respondents incessant
pleas to negotiate. Although the dismissal of a case for failure to
prosecute is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the
court, that judgment however must not be abused. The
availability of this recourse must be determined according to the
procedural history of each case, the situation at the time of the
dismissal, and the diligence of plaintiff to proceed therein. Stress
must also be laid upon the official directive that courts must
endeavor to convince parties in a civil case to consummate a fair
settlement,and to mitigate damages to be paid by the losing party
who has shown a sincere desire for such giveandtake. All things
considered, we see no compelling circumstances to uphold the
dismissal of petitioners complaint regardless of its
characterization as being without prejudice.
Same Same A court may dismiss a case on the ground of non
prosequitur but the real test of the judicious exercise of such power
is whether under the circumstances plaintiff is chargeable with
want of fitting assiduousness in not acting on his complaint with
reasonable promptitude.In fine, petitioner cannot be said to
have lost interest in fighting the civil case to the end. A court may
dismiss a case on the ground of non prosequitur but the real test
of the judicious exercise of such power is whether under the
circumstances plaintiff is chargeable with want of fitting
assiduousness in not acting on his complaint with reasonable
promptitude. Unless a partys conduct is so indifferent,
irresponsible, contumacious or slothful as to provide substantial
grounds for dismissal, i.e., equivalent to default or non
appearance in the case, the courts should consider lesser
sanctions which would still amount to achieving the desired end.
In the absence of a
596
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015bf5426fc46672295c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/23
5/11/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME402
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015bf5426fc46672295c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/23
5/11/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME402
BELLOSILLO, J.:
_______________
598
6
Petitioner did not cause the case to be set for pretrial. For
about six (6) months thereafter, discussions between
petitioner and respondents Magwin Marketing
Corporation, Nelson Tiu, Benito Sy and Anderson Uy, as
parties in Civil Case No. 99518, were undertaken to
restructure the indebtedness 7
of respondent Magwin
Marketing Corporation. On 9 May 2000 petitioner
approved a debt payment scheme for the corporation which
on 15 May 2000 was communicated to the latter by means
of a letter dated 10 May 2000 for the conformity of its
officers, i.e., respondent Nelson Tiu as President/General
Manager of Magwin Marketing Corporation 8
and
respondent Benito Sy as Director thereof. Only respondent
Nelson Tiu affixed his signature on the letter to signify his
agreement to 9
the terms and conditions of the
restructuring.
On 20 July 2000 the RTC of Makati City, on its own
initiative, issued an Order dismissing without prejudice
Civil Case No. 99518 for failure of petitioner as plaintiff
therein to prosecute
10
its action for an unreasonable length
of time x x x. On 31 July 2000 petitioner moved for
reconsideration of the Order by informing the trial court of
respondents unremitting desire to settle 11
the case amicably
through a loan restructuring program. On 22 August 2000
petitioner notified the trial court of the acquiescence
thereto of respondent Nelson Tiu as an officer of Magwin 12
Marketing Corporation and defendant in the civil case.
On 8 September 2000 the court a quo issued an Order
reconsidering the dismissal without prejudice of Civil Case
No. 99518
_______________
6 Id., at p. 234.
7 Rollo, p. 6 CA Record, p. 136.
8 Id., at p. 6 id., at pp. 4243.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015bf5426fc46672295c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/23
5/11/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME402
9 Rollo, p. 7.
10 Ibid.
11 CA Record, p. 242.
12 Rollo, p. 7.
599
_______________
600
trial court issued two (2) Orders, one of which inserted the
date 6 November 2000 in the undated Order rejecting
petitioners motion for pretrial in the civil case, and the
other denying due course to the Notice of Appeal on the
ground that the Orders dated 8 September 2000 and 6
November 2000 are interlocutory
18
orders and therefore, no
appeal may be taken x x x.
On 7 December 2000 petitioner elevated the Orders
dated 8 September 2000, 6 November 2000 and 16
November 2000 of the trial court to the Court of Appeals in
a petition for
19
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure. In the main, petitioner argued that the court a
quo had no authority to compel the parties in Civil Case No.
99518 to enter into an amicable settlement nor to deny the
holding of a pretrial conference on the ground that no
compromise
20
agreement was turned over to the court a
quo.
On 28 September 2001 the appellate court promulgated
its Decision dismissing the petition for lack of merit
21
and
affirming the assailed Orders of the trial court holding
that
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015bf5426fc46672295c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/23
5/11/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME402
fees for the refiling of the case so much so that the non
compliance by petitioner of condition no. 1 would make condition
no. 2 effective, especially that petitioners manifestation and
motion to set case for pretrial conference and supplemental
motion x x x [were] denied by the respondent judge in his Order
dated November 6, 2000, which in effect means that the Order
dated July 20, 2000 was ultimately not set aside considering that
a
_______________
601
_______________
22 Id., at p. 34.
23 G.R. No. 99431, 11 August 1992, 212 SCRA 498.
602
_______________
603
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015bf5426fc46672295c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/23
5/11/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME402
_______________
604
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015bf5426fc46672295c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/23
5/11/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME402
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015bf5426fc46672295c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/23
5/11/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME402
605
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015bf5426fc46672295c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/23
5/11/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME402
_______________
606
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015bf5426fc46672295c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/23
5/11/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME402
_______________
607
34
concession. Hence, if only to inspire confidence in the
pursuit of a middle ground between petitioner and
respondents, we must not interpret the trial courts Orders
as dismissing the action on its own motion because the
parties, specifically petitioner, were anxious to litigate
their case as exhibited in their several manifestations and
motions.
We reject respondent Uys contention that Goldloop
Properties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals is irrelevant to the case
at bar on the dubious reasoning that the complaint of
petitioner was dismissed for failure to prosecute and not for
the nonsubmission of a compromise agreement which was
the bone of contention in that case, and that the dismissal
imposed in the instant case was without prejudice, in
contrast to the dismissal with prejudice decreed in the cited
case. To begin with, whether the dismissal is with or
without prejudice if grievously erroneous is detrimental to
the cause of the affected party Goldloop Properties, Inc.
does not tolerate a wrongful dismissal just because it was
without prejudice. More importantly, the facts in Goldloop
Properties, Inc. involve, as in the instant case, a dismissal
for failure to prosecute on the ground of the parties
inability to come up with a compromise agreement within
fifteen (15) days from notice of the courts order therein. All
told, the parallelism between them is unmistakable.
Even if we are to accept on face value respondents
understanding of Goldloop Properties, Inc. as solely about
the failure to submit a compromise agreement, it is
apparent that the present case confronts a similar problem.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015bf5426fc46672295c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/23
5/11/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME402
_______________
34 Civil Code, art. 2029 see SC Adm. Order No. 2101 see also A.M. No.
99601SC.
608
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015bf5426fc46672295c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/23
5/11/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME402
_______________
610
_______________
611
o0o
612
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015bf5426fc46672295c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/23