Facts:

The case of Gregorio Rodillas vs. Farmacia Central, Inc. (G.R. No. L-6908) was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on December 22, 1954. The plaintiff-appellant, Gregorio Rodillas, filed an action for the recovery of overtime pay against the defendant-appellee, Farmacia Central, Inc. Rodillas claimed that he had been working as a driver for the defendant and had rendered three hours of overtime service every day since his employment, for which he sought corresponding overtime compensation along with attorney's fees as damages. The defendant denied the claim and filed a counterclaim for damages.

The case was initially set for hearing on May 19, 1953, following an ex parte motion filed by Rodillas' attorney on May 6, 1953, requesting immediate hearing. On the scheduled date, Rodillas appeared in court, but his counsel was absent. The court had received a telegram from Rodillas' attorney, Atty. Suanes, requesting a postponement due to a busy schedule w...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Plaintiff-Appellant: Gregorio Rodillas
   • Defendant-Appellee: Farmacia Central, Inc.

2. Nature of the Case:

   • The plaintiff filed an action to recover overtime pay for three hours of overtime work rendered daily since his employment as a driver, along with attorney's fees as damages.

3. Procedural Background:

   • The case was set for hearing on May 19, 1953, at 1:00 P.M., following an ex parte motion filed by the plaintiff's counsel on May 6, 1953.
   • On the day of the hearing, the plaintiff appeared without his counsel.
   • The court received a telegram from the plaintiff's counsel at 11:00 A.M. on the same day, requesting a postponement due to his involvement in a criminal trial in Batangas.
   • The defendant objected to the postponement, and the plaintiff stated he could not proceed with the trial.
   • The trial court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute.
   • A motion for reconsideration was filed but was denied by the trial court.

4. Appeal:

   • The plaintiff appealed directly to the Supreme Court, arguing that the dismissal deprived him of his day in court and constituted a grave abuse of discretion.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Failure to Prosecute:

   • The Supreme Court held that the failure of the plaintiff's counsel to appear at the trial, coupled with the plaintiff's unwillingness to proceed without counsel, constitutes a failure to prosecute.
   • The Court cited Del Prado vs. Gonzales (G.R. No. L-3933), which established that such failure justifies dismissal.

2. Non-Compliance with Rules:

   • The plaintiff's counsel failed to comply with the Rules of Court, specifically Sections 2, 3, and 4 of Rule 26, which require motions for postponement to be filed at least three days in advance and with notice to the adverse party.
   • The telegram requesting postponement was sent on the day of the trial and lacked proper notice to the defendant.

3. No Abuse of Discretion:

   • The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for postponement and dismissing the case.
   • The plaintiff was not deprived of due process, as the dismissal was in accordance with procedural rules and jurisprudence.