G.R. No. 103185 January 22, 1993
CONRADO CALALANG, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS and FILIPINAS MANUFACTURERS BANK, respondents.
Respondent Filipinas Manufacturers Bank filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money1against petitioner Conrado Calalang and 3 other defendants namely, Hugo M. Arca, Rio Arturo Salceda and the Acropolis Trading Corporation with the Court of First Instance.
Petitioner, after having been served with summons on May 19, 1980, filed a Motion to Dismiss on June 2, 1980. The other summoned defendant, Hugo M. Arca, filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars on June 5, 1980. The two other defendants namely, the Acropolis Trading Corporation and Rio Arturo Salceda were also summoned but only a clerk-employee of the Acropolis Trading Corporation received the summons while Arturo R. Salceda was no longer residing at his given address.
Over a year after, the Motion for Bill of Particulars was granted. Meanwhile, the Motion to Dismiss filed by petitioner Calalang was left unresolved. The last pleading filed regarding the Motion to Dismiss was the reply of petitioner Calalang to the opposition to the motion to dismiss by respondent bank
This case has been set several times for pre-trial. Petitioner Calalang moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that respondent bank failed to prosecute the case for an unreasonable length of time.
Issue: WON there was failure of the plaintiff to prosecute.
Held:
To be a sufficient ground for dismissal, delay must not only be lengthy but also unnecessary and dilatory resulting in the trifling of judicial processes.
In Marahay vs. Melicor, the Court set forth the test for dismissal of a case due to failure to prosecute, to wit:
While a court can dismiss a case on the ground of non prosequitur, the real test for the exercise of such power is whether, under the circumstances, plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude. In the absence of a pattern or scheme to delay the disposition of the case or a wanton failure to observe the mandatory requirement of the rules on the part of the plaintiff, as in the case at bar, courts should decide to dispense with rather than wield their authority to dismiss.
Dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the court. That discretion, however, must not be abused. Thus, courts may not enter a dismissal which is not warranted by the circumstances of the case. The availability of this recourse must be determined according to each case's procedural history, situation at the time of the dismissal and whether, and under the circumstances of the particular case, the plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude.
CONRADO CALALANG, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS and FILIPINAS MANUFACTURERS BANK, respondents.
Respondent Filipinas Manufacturers Bank filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money1against petitioner Conrado Calalang and 3 other defendants namely, Hugo M. Arca, Rio Arturo Salceda and the Acropolis Trading Corporation with the Court of First Instance.
Petitioner, after having been served with summons on May 19, 1980, filed a Motion to Dismiss on June 2, 1980. The other summoned defendant, Hugo M. Arca, filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars on June 5, 1980. The two other defendants namely, the Acropolis Trading Corporation and Rio Arturo Salceda were also summoned but only a clerk-employee of the Acropolis Trading Corporation received the summons while Arturo R. Salceda was no longer residing at his given address.
Over a year after, the Motion for Bill of Particulars was granted. Meanwhile, the Motion to Dismiss filed by petitioner Calalang was left unresolved. The last pleading filed regarding the Motion to Dismiss was the reply of petitioner Calalang to the opposition to the motion to dismiss by respondent bank
This case has been set several times for pre-trial. Petitioner Calalang moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that respondent bank failed to prosecute the case for an unreasonable length of time.
Issue: WON there was failure of the plaintiff to prosecute.
Held:
To be a sufficient ground for dismissal, delay must not only be lengthy but also unnecessary and dilatory resulting in the trifling of judicial processes.
In Marahay vs. Melicor, the Court set forth the test for dismissal of a case due to failure to prosecute, to wit:
While a court can dismiss a case on the ground of non prosequitur, the real test for the exercise of such power is whether, under the circumstances, plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude. In the absence of a pattern or scheme to delay the disposition of the case or a wanton failure to observe the mandatory requirement of the rules on the part of the plaintiff, as in the case at bar, courts should decide to dispense with rather than wield their authority to dismiss.
Dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the court. That discretion, however, must not be abused. Thus, courts may not enter a dismissal which is not warranted by the circumstances of the case. The availability of this recourse must be determined according to each case's procedural history, situation at the time of the dismissal and whether, and under the circumstances of the particular case, the plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude.
No comments:
Post a Comment