Case Summary (G.R. No. L-46244)
Factual Background
On January 12, 1976, the petitioners initiated Civil Case No. 100798 for a sum of money against the private respondents before the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XIII, presided over by Judge Galano. Subsequently, on August 29, 1976, the private respondents filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars, citing the vagueness of the petitioner’s claims regarding the defendants’ accountability. The motion was granted on September 20, 1976, requiring the petitioners to file a Bill of Particulars or an Amended Complaint within ten days of receiving the court’s order on October 5, 1976. However, the petitioners failed to comply with this directive.
Motions and Extensions
As a result of the petitioners' non-compliance, the private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on November 15, 1976, due to the lack of presented pleadings. A hearing was scheduled for December 1, 1976, during which the court allowed the petitioners a five-day extension to file the necessary documents. Despite this, the petitioners once again failed to comply. On December 6, 1976, the petitioners filed an ex-parte Motion for an additional seven-day extension, which the court granted. However, even after further extensions, the petitioners remained non-compliant.
Court Proceedings and Dismissal
On January 5, 1977, the private respondents filed a second Motion to Dismiss, which was scheduled for hearing on January 13, 1977. The petitioners failed to appear for this hearing; instead, they submitted an opposition citing various personal and professional pressures as reasons for their non-compliance. Nonetheless, on January 13, 1977, the respondent Judge issued an Order dismissing the case citing the merit of the motion to dismiss due to the petitioners’ failure to prosecute.
Petition for Reconsideration
Following the dismissal, on February 24, 1977, the petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the dismissal was contrary to law and precedent since they believed they had a meritorious case and that any dismissal should be without prejudice. The respondent Judge, however, denied this motion on March 3, 1977.
Legal Issues and Rulings
The central question for determination was whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute. The resolution referenced Rule 12, Section 1(c) of the Rules of Court concerning the consequences of non-compliance with a court order for a Bill of Particulars. It was determined that the court’s authority allow
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-46244)
Case Background
- The case involves a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus filed by Lirag, Manalac, Sarangaya, and Tanco Securities Corporation (petitioner) against Honorable Ricardo D. Galano and other private respondents.
- The petitioner sought to annul an order made by the respondent judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XIII, which dismissed Civil Case No. 100798.
Procedural History
- On January 12, 1976, the petitioner initiated an action for a sum of money against the private respondents in the aforementioned court.
- August 29, 1976, private respondents filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars, asserting that the complaint was vague regarding the accountability of each defendant.
- On September 20, 1976, the respondent judge issued an order allowing the petitioner ten days to file a Bill of Particulars or an Amended Complaint, with the petitioner receiving this order on October 5, 1976.
- The petitioner failed to comply with this order.
- On November 15, 1976, the private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss, citing the petitioner's non-compliance.
- A hearing was scheduled for December 1, 1976, during which the respondent court granted the petitioner a five-day extension to file the necessary documents.
- On December 6, 1976, the petitioner requested an additional seven-day extension, which was granted.