Facts:

The case involves the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) as the petitioner and Citiwide Motors, Inc. (CMI) as the respondent. On October 6, 1983, CMI filed a complaint for nullification of foreclosure and auction sale with an injunction against BPI before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, designated as Civil Case No. Q-39581. After nearly five years focused on the issue of a preliminary injunction, the RTC scheduled the trial for pre-trial on June 21, 1988. Unfortunately, on June 11, 1988, a fire at the Quezon City Hall resulted in the destruction of the case records. On October 6, 1989, CMI filed a petition for reconstitution of these records, attaching various documents its counsel managed to gather. The RTC, on January 11, 1990, instructed both parties to examine and initial each page of the reconstituted records.

On February 2, 1990, BPI’s counsel cited difficulties in complying due to resignations and inability to locate records. Consequently, on March 26, 19

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• On October 6, 1983, respondent Citiwide Motors, Inc. (CMI) filed a Complaint for Nullification of Foreclosure and Auction Sale with Injunction against petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 97 (Civil Case No. Q-39581).
• The proceedings spanned over many years, with the case remaining pending for more than fifteen (15) years.

Pre-Trial Proceedings and Record Destruction

• The trial court set the case for a pre-trial conference on June 21, 1988, after nearly five (5) years had elapsed following resolution of a preliminary injunction issue.
• On June 11, 1988, all the case records were destroyed in a fire at the Quezon City Hall, leading to complications in the proceedings.
• On October 6, 1989, respondent CMI filed a petition for the reconstitution of the burned records, attaching pertinent documents it managed to gather.

Efforts to Reconstitute the Records

• The trial court on January 11, 1990, directed both parties to scrutinize and initial every page of the annexes submitted for reconstitution before accepting them as part of the official records.
• On February 2, 1990, petitioner’s counsel expressed inability to comply because the attending counsel, Atty. Alberto F. Serrano, had resigned and left the country, while the substitute counsel was still locating the necessary records for comparison.

Movements Leading to Dismissal

• On March 26, 1992, petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint due to respondent’s failure to reconstitute the records.
• On April 29, 1992, the trial court denied the dismissal motion for lack of merit and set a conference on May 28, 1992, aimed at expediting the case disposition and discussing possible mediation.
• The scheduled conference was later rescheduled first to August 4, 1992, and finally to September 10, 1992.
• On September 10, 1992, the trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that respondent’s counsel did not appear in court, which was interpreted as evidence of a lack of interest to pursue the case.

Subsequent Motions and Appeals

• Petitioner's counsel filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal, explaining that the absence of respondent’s counsel on September 10, 1992, was due to physical indisposition attributed to her monthly period.
• This motion was denied on December 3, 1992.
• On December 15, 1992, respondent elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.
• The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal on September 27, 1994, remanding the case for further proceedings, and emphasized that dismissal should be a last resort absent clear negligence or intent to delay.

Issue:

Whether the dismissal of the complaint by the trial court for respondent counsel’s failure to attend the scheduled conference was proper under the rules.

• Whether the absence at a non-essential conference, rather than at a trial or a mandatory pre-trial session, justified dismissal.
• Whether the dismissal could be considered as a proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion.

Whether the application of SEC. 3, Rule 17 of the Revised Rules of Court and the corresponding provision in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure were accurately interpreted in dismissing the action.

• If the failure to attend a conference “to discover ways and means of expediting disposition” falls within the ambit of non-prosecution or non-compliance as contemplated by the rules.

Whether the delay in the prosecution of the case could solely be imputed to respondent counsel, given that petitioner’s own actions contributed to the delay (e.g., the motion to dismiss due to failure to reconstitute records).

• The extent to which the trial court’s dismissal reflects a sound application of judicial discretion amidst prolonged delays from both parties.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)