Case Summary (G.R. No. 170470)
Facts of the Case
This case involves an appeal stemming from a judgment by the Court of First Instance of Manila, which dismissed an action filed by Gregorio Rodillas against Farmacia Central, Inc. The plaintiff sought recovery for overtime pay, claiming he had worked three hours of overtime daily since his employment as a driver. After the issues were joined, the plaintiff’s attorney requested an immediate hearing for the case. The court set a hearing date for May 19, 1953.
Dismissal of the Case
On the designated hearing date, the plaintiff appeared but without his attorney. The court received a telegram from Atty. Suanes requesting a postponement due to a prior commitment in a criminal trial. The defendant objected to the postponement, and since the plaintiff expressed inability to proceed, the court dismissed the case. The plaintiff later filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied.
Legal Arguments
The plaintiff-appellant contended that he had diligently pursued the inclusion of the case in the court calendar and argued that the dismissal deprived him of his right to a fair trial, constituting a grave abuse of discretion. The plaintiff emphasized that the case was only seven months old and claimed he did not fail to prosecute it for an unreasonable time.
Judicial Reasoning
In analyzing the situation, the Supreme Court referenced established jurisprudence, noting that the absence of a plaintiff’s attorney during trial amounts to a failure to prosecute the case. Citing the ruling in Del Prado vs. Gonzales, it affirmed that the responsibility lies with the plaintiff to ensure representation at trial. Additionally, the Court highlighted procedu
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 170470)
Case Overview
- This case is an appeal from a judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila, which dismissed an action for overtime pay due to the plaintiff's failure to prosecute the case.
- The appeal was directed to the Supreme Court, where the plaintiff-appellant argued that the dismissal deprived him of his right to a fair hearing and constituted a grave abuse of discretion.
Facts of the Case
- Plaintiff's Claim: The plaintiff, Gregorio Rodillas, claimed he rendered three hours of overtime service daily since his employment as a driver, requesting corresponding overtime pay along with attorney's fees as damages.
- Defendant's Response: Farmacia Central, Inc., the defendant-appellee, denied the claim and filed a counterclaim for damages.
- Initial Proceedings: After the issues were joined, the plaintiff's attorney filed an ex parte motion on May 6, 1953, seeking an immediate hearing, which was scheduled for May 19, 1953.
Court Proceedings
- Hearing on Scheduled Date: On the hearing date, plaintiff Rodillas appeared without his counsel.
- Telegram Notification: The court received a telegram from the plaintiff'