Facts:

The case involves petitioners Jose E. Abinales and Sol F. Beltran, who were former employees of private respondent Roque Cantos, operating the Rocan Shell Shop in Zamboanga City. Abinales served as the manager, while Beltran held the position of cashier and bookkeeper. On October 1, 1967, they received a termination letter dated September 21, 1967, from Cantos, which they deemed arbitrary. Consequently, on March 2, 1968, they filed Civil Case No. 1198 in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City, seeking separation pay, commissions due, and moral damages. The pre-trial was completed on August 15, 1969, and the trial commenced, with the last hearing occurring on November 20, 1971. By this time, the petitioners had presented substantial evidence, with only corroborative evidence regarding moral damages remaining. The case was scheduled for a hearing in December 1971, but no further hearings occurred. On December 27, 1974, the trial court dismissed the case without prejudice...

Facts:

Parties and Employment Background

• Petitioners:
• Jose E. Abinales, formerly the manager.
• Sol F. Beltran, formerly the cashier and bookkeeper.
• Respondents:
• Private respondent Roque Cantos, owner of Rocan Shell Shop in Zamboanga City.
• The Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City, Branch I, later as respondent in the case.

Termination of Employment and Commencement of Litigation

• On or about October 6–7, 1967, petitioners received a termination letter dated September 21, 1967, effective October 1, 1967.
• Petitioners treated the dismissal as arbitrary, prompting them to file a civil case (Civil Case No. 1198) on March 2, 1968, seeking:
• Separation pay.
• Commissions due.
• Moral damages.

Progress of the Case Before Trial Court

• Pre-trial proceedings were completed on August 15, 1969.
• Trial on the merits commenced thereafter:
• By the last hearing on November 20, 1971, petitioners had substantially presented their proofs on all claims.
• The sole remaining evidence was the corroborative testimony of a doctor regarding petitioner Abinales’ nervous breakdown, which was scheduled for submission in December 1971.

Delay and Dismissal of the Case

• Despite scheduling for December 1971, no subsequent hearing took place.
• Three years later, on December 27, 1974, the trial court dismissed the complaint without prejudice on the ground of “failure to prosecute” (non-prosequi).
• The trial court’s rationale was that petitioners had shown a lack of interest by not actively moving for the final termination of their case since November 20, 1971.

Petitioners’ Subsequent Motions and Court’s Delay

• On January 23, 1975, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order, arguing:
• Considerable evidence had already been introduced.
• Their counsel had made repeated verbal requests to the clerk for inclusion in the trial calendar, but the calendar was full and priority was given to criminal cases, notably smuggling cases.
• After three months without resolution, petitioners filed another motion on April 23, 1975, demanding prompt action on their reconsideration request.
• On May 9, 1975, the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration.

Initiation of the Petition for Review

• Dissatisfied with the dismissals and the denial of reconsideration, petitioners commenced the present petition for review on certiorari.
• The Supreme Court treated the petition as a special civil action to review the dismissal.

Issue:

Whether the trial court’s dismissal of the petitioners’ civil complaint for failure to prosecute (non-prosequi) constituted an abuse of discretion.

• Did the trial court correctly assess the diligence of petitioners in prosecuting their case?
• Was the dismissal warranted in light of the substantial evidence already adduced by petitioners?
• Should mitigating circumstances—such as a heavy docket and external conditions affecting regular litigation—have precluded the dismissal?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)