Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 117385, February 11, 1999) (CASE DIGEST)

Facts

Respondent Citiwide Motors, Inc. (CMI) filed a Complaint against petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) in 1983. After almost five years, the records of the case were burned in a fire in 1988. CMI filed for the reconstitution of the records in 1989. The petitioner (BPI) later contributed to the delay in reconstitution when its counsel resigned and went abroad, making comparison of the records difficult. BPI subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint for CMI’s alleged failure to reconstitute, but this motion was denied.

The trial court scheduled a “conference” for May 28, 1992, reset to September 10, 1992, “to discover ways and means of expediting disposition, including submission of this case for mediation”. CMI’s counsel failed to appear at the September 10, 1992, conference, claiming physical indisposition. The trial court then dismissed the complaint based solely on this failure to appear, citing “lack of interest to pursue this case”. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, and BPI appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the trial court acted properly in dismissing the complaint for failure of the plaintiff’s counsel to attend a single scheduled conference set “to discover ways and means of expediting disposition, including submission of this case for mediation”.
2. Whether a single instance of non-appearance at such a conference constitutes a failure to prosecute the action for an “unreasonable length of time” under the Revised Rules of Court.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 27 September 1994 is AFFIRMED. Civil Case No. Q-39581 is REMANDED to the court of origin which is DIRECTED to resolve the case with dispatch. Costs against petitioner.

Essential Elements of Jurisprudence

Controlling Doctrine: The power of a court to dismiss a case on the ground of non prosequitur (failure to prosecute) must be exercised soundly and without abuse. The real test for justifying such a dismissal is whether, under the circumstances, plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude.

Legal Principles Established:

1. Scope of Dismissal under Rule 17: The grounds for dismissal due to the plaintiff’s fault, enumerated in Sec. 3, Rule 17 (Revised Rules of Court/1997 Rules of Civil Procedure), primarily contemplate failure to appear at trial, failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time, or failure to comply with mandatory rules/orders.
2. Non-Attendance at Non-Mandatory Conference: A conference set by the trial court “to discover ways and means of expediting disposition, including submission of this case for mediation” is neither a regular trial nor a pre-trial conference under Rule 18. Failure to attend this specific type of conference, standing alone, does not fall within the enumerated grounds for dismissal.
3. Requirement of Pattern of Delay: Dismissal based on failure to prosecute is unwarranted in the absence of any pattern or a scheme to delay the disposition of the case or a wanton failure to observe the mandatory requirement of the rules.
4. Indulgence for New Counsel: If the court is notified that the private respondent is utilizing a new counsel, the trial court should be “more indulgent” by providing the new counsel another opportunity if they miss their first scheduled appearance.

Sample Q&A

Question: Counsel for Plaintiff failed to appear at a mandatory pre-trial conference, leading the court to dismiss the case motu proprio for lack of interest. If the court later discovers that the proceeding missed was not a pre-trial conference under Rule 18, but merely a single, court-initiated conference to discuss mediation and expediting case disposition, would the dismissal constitute reversible error, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s pronouncements regarding Sec. 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Civil Procedure?

Answer: Yes, the dismissal would constitute reversible error. The Supreme Court holds that dismissal for failure to prosecute under Sec. 3, Rule 17 (or Sec. 3, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) is only justified where the plaintiff fails to appear during a scheduled trial, fails to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time, fails to comply with rules/orders, or fails to appear at a pre-trial. Since the missed conference was neither a regular trial nor a formal pre-trial conference, and in the absence of a demonstrable “pattern or a scheme to delay” the case, a single instance of non-appearance does not sufficiently prove “lack of interest to pursue this case” or warrant the harsh sanction of dismissal. Justice is better served by dispensing with the dismissal unless the conduct is so negligent or contumacious as to provide substantial grounds for dismissal.

---

FailureToProsecute #NonProsequitur #BPIvsCA #CivilProcedure #DismissalOfAction #WantOfDueDiligence #RulesOfCourt #AbuseOfDiscretion #Rule17 #JurisprudencePH #MediationPH #PhilippineLaw #RemedialLaw #SupremeCourtPH #CaseDigestPH #PhilippineLawyer #LawStudentPH #LegalEducationPH #BarExamsPH #LitigationPH #PhilippineJudiciary #LawPH #LegalPH #KnowYourRights #LawyerLife #LegalUpdate #JusticePH #Attorney #LawFirmPH #LegalInsights #CaseBrief #Philippines