Lirag, Manalac, Sarangaya, and Tanco Securities Corporation v. Galano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Lirag, Manalac, Sarangaya, and Tanco Securities Corporation filed an action for a Sum of Money against private respondents Estrellita A. Ramos, Johnny Ramos, and Crispin Apuntar before the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XIII. Procedural History: Private respondents filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars, alleging vagueness in the complaint regarding the accountability of each defendant. The respondent Judge granted this motion, giving petitioner ten (10) days to file a Bill of Particulars or an Amended Complaint. Petitioner failed to comply. Subsequently, private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss due to this non-compliance. The Court granted petitioner an additional five (5) days to file an Amended Complaint, which expired on December 6, 1976. Petitioner then requested a third extension of seven (7) days, until December 13, 1976, which was also granted. Despite these extensions, petitioner still failed to comply. Private respondents filed a second Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner did not appear at the hearing but filed an "Opposition to Motion to Dismiss" citing pressure of work and relocation of their law office. On January 13, 1977, the respondent Judge issued an Order dismissing the case. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing the dismissal was contrary to law and jurisprudence, denied due process, and should have been without prejudice. The respondent Judge denied this motion. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus to annul the dismissal order, arguing that the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to reconsider his Order dismissing the complaint for failure to prosecute.
Ruling
The Court ruled in the negative, finding that the respondent Judge did not act with grave abuse of discretion. The petition was dismissed, with costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute: The Court held that the respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Section 1(c) of Rule 12 of the Rules of Court provides that if an order to make a pleading more definite and certain or for a bill of particulars is not obeyed within the time fixed by the court, the court may order the striking out of the pleading or make such other order as it deems just. Furthermore, Section 3 of Rule 17 states that if a plaintiff fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time or to comply with the rules or any order of the court, the action may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion, and this dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise provided by the court. In this case, the petitioner clearly failed to comply with the orders of the respondent Judge to file a Bill of Particulars or an Amended Complaint, despite multiple extensions granted. The respondent Court deemed it just to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute under Rule 17, Section 3. This action was well within the bounds of judicial discretion. The petitioner cannot claim denial of substantial justice and due process, as it was afforded ample opportunities to comply with the court's directives but chose not to. The dismissal, even with prejudice, was a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the court. The Court cited Vda. de Quillosa vs. Salazar (G.R. No. L-18172, July 20, 1968) to support the principle that the striking out of a complaint for failure to submit a bill of particulars is a ground for dismissal equivalent to an adjudication on the merits unless otherwise provided.
Main Doctrine
A court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute if the plaintiff fails to comply with the rules or any order of the court, and such dismissal generally has the effect of an adjudication upon the merits unless otherwise provided by the court. Refusal to reconsider such dismissal, when the plaintiff has been given ample opportunity to comply but failed to do so, does not constitute grave abuse of discretion.