Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
HELD: Dismissals of actions for failure of the plaintiff to Thus, the trial court dismissed the case stating that
prosecute is authorized under Section 3, Rule 17 of the mediation is part of pre-trial and that under the Rules,
Rules of Court. Procedurally, when a complaint is failure of the plaintiff to appear at the pre-trial shall be
dismissed for failure to prosecute and the dismissal is ground for the dismissal of the action for non-suit.
unqualified, the dismissal has the effect of an
adjudication on the merits. Respondent’s new counsel filed a Motion for
Reconsideration but the court denied the same.
In our view, the developments in the present case do
not satisfy the stringent standards set in law and On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC. The
jurisprudence for a non prosequitur. The fundamental appellate court stated that respondent judge did not
test for non prosequitur is whether, under the even peruse or verify the records of the case. Has she
circumstances, the plaintiff is chargeable with want of done so, she would have discovered that the former
due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable counsel of petitioner to whom she sent the Notice of the
promptitude. There must be unwillingness on the part order had already withdrawn and that a new counsel for
of the plaintiff to prosecute. petitioner had already entered their appearance.
In this case, the parties’ own narrations of facts Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by
demonstrate the petitioner’s willingness to prosecute its the CA.
complaint. Indeed, neither respondents FGU Insurance
nor Baetiong was able to point to any specific act Hence, this petition.
committed by the petitioner to justify the dismissal of
their case. ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in setting aside the order
of the trial court dismissing the case before it due to the
While it is discretionary on the trial court to dismiss failure of respondent and its counsel to attend the
cases, dismissals of actions should be made with care. mediation conference.
The repressive or restraining effect of the rule
amounting to adjudication upon the merits may cut HELD: In Senalo v. Judge Paderanga, we held that
short a case even before it is fully litigated; a ruling of mediation is a part of pre-trial and failure of the plaintiff
dismissal may forever bar a litigant from pursuing to appear thereat merits sanction on the part of the
judicial relief under the same cause of action. Hence, absent party.
sound discretion demands vigilance in duly recognizing
the circumstances surrounding the case to the end that Under Rule 18, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, failure
technicality shall not prevail over substantial justice. of the plaintiff to appear at pre-trial shall be cause for
dismissal of the action.
This court is thus of the opinion that the dismissal of
Civil Case No. 02-488 is not warranted. Neither facts,
However, the ruling in Senarlo will not resolve the
present case where the basic issue is whether or not
respondents Samsung non-appearance at the mediation
proceedings is justifiable from the records.