G.R. No. L-46244 - Lirag, Manalac, Sarangaya, and Tanco Securities Corp. vs. Galano

On January 12, 1976, petitioner filed an action for a sum of money against private respondents before the then Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XIII (Civil Case No. 100798).
The case was presided over by the respondent Judge of Branch XIII.

On August 29, 1976, private respondents filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars, contending that the complaint’s allegations regarding accountability were vague and indefinite.
In response, on September 20, 1976, the respondent Judge issued an Order granting the motion and directing petitioner to file either a Bill of Particulars or an Amended Complaint within ten (10) days from receipt of the Order.

Petitioner failed to file the required pleading within the prescribed period.
On November 15, 1976, private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of petitioner’s non-compliance with the Order.

During the hearing on December 1, 1976, petitioner requested a five-day extension, which was granted, setting the new deadline on December 6, 1976.
On December 6, 1976, petitioner filed an ex-parte Motion for an additional seven-day extension (until December 13, 1976), which was approved by the court.
On December 13, 1976, petitioner sought a third extension for seven more days (until December 20, 1976), but again failed to file the requisite pleading, with the period lapsing without compliance.

On January 5, 1977, private respondents filed a second Motion to Dismiss, invoking Section 3 of Rule 17 based on the failure to prosecute.
At the hearing on January 13, 1977, petitioner did not appear in person but instead submitted an “Opposition to Motion to Dismiss” citing work pressures and relocation issues.
On the same day, the respondent Judge issued an Order dismissing the case, finding the motion to dismiss meritorious.

On February 24, 1977, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the dismissal constituted a denial of due process despite having a meritorious claim and that the judgment should have been rendered without prejudice.
The respondent Judge denied the motion for reconsideration in an Order dated March 3, 1977.

Section 1(c) of Rule 12 of the Rules of Court provides that if an order to file a bill of particulars is not obeyed within the specified time, the court may strike out the pleading or make other orders as it deems just.
Section 3 of Rule 17 allows the court or the defendant, upon motion, to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or for non-compliance with court orders, with the effect of an adjudication on the merits unless the court decides otherwise.

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion when dismissing the case for failure to prosecute.

The core issue is if the dismissal was a proper exercise of judicial discretion given petitioner’s repeated non-compliance with court orders.

Whether dismissing the complaint amounted to an adjudication on the merits that violated due process, in light of petitioner’s claim of having a meritorious case.

The petitioner argued that even if non-compliance warranted dismissal, the dismissal should have been without prejudice.