Lawyerly

GR No. 208792

2015-07-22

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. SPS. ROBERTO AND TERESITA GENUINO

LEONEN, J.

Respondents Spouses Genuino cannot rely on Olave v. Mistas as this involved a trial court Order dated October 20, 1997 dismissing the Complaint with prejudice.[33] The facts in Olave took place before the effectivity of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC on August 16, 2004.

GR No. 201760

2013-09-16

LBL INDUSTRIES v. CITY OF LAPU-LAPU

VELASCO JR., J.

Sec. 1, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court imposes upon the plaintiff the duty to set the case for pre-trial after the last pleading is served and filed. With this in mind, We have, in several cases,[16] ruled that the plaintiffs omission to promptly move that the case be set for pre-trial is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint due to his fault, particularly for failing to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 17.

GR No. 192716

2012-06-13

ELOISA MERCHANDISING v. BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

By Decision dated March 30, 2010, the CA affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the case. The CA said that petitioners cannot justify their prolonged inaction by belatedly raising as issue the pending motion for reconsideration from the trial court's denial of their motion to admit the supplemental complaint, when all along they were aware that the case was at the pre-trial stage as in fact the case was twice dismissed for their failure to attend the pre-trial conference. Under the circumstances stated in its September 20, 2005 Order, the CA held that the trial court cannot be faulted for dismissing the case on the ground of petitioners' failure to prosecute their action, citing this Court's ruling in Olave v. Mistas.[23]

GR No. 181020

2009-11-25

JAZMIN L. ESPIRITU v. VLADIMIR G. LAZARO

NACHURA, J.

On June 29, 2007, the CA affirmed the dismissal of the case.[14] Citing Olave v. Mistas,[15] the CA stressed that it is plaintiff's duty to promptly set the case for pre-trial, and that failure to do so may result in the dismissal of the case. According to the CA, petitioners should not have waited for a supplemental answer or an order by the trial court and done nothing for more than 11 months from the receipt of the last pleading.

GR No. 177456

2009-09-04

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. DOMINGO R. DANDO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The counsel of BPI invokes "heavy pressures of work" to explain his failure to file the Pre-Trial Brief with the RTC and to serve a copy thereof to Dando at least three days prior to the scheduled Pre-Trial Conference.[36] True, in Olave v. Mistas,[37] we did not find "heavy pressures of work" as sufficient justification for the failure of therein respondents' counsel to timely move for pre-trial. However, unlike the respondents in Olave,[38] the failure of BPI to file its Pre-Trial Brief with the RTC and provide Dando with a copy thereof within the prescribed period under Section 1, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, was the first and, so far, only procedural lapse committed by the bank in Civil Case No. 03-281. BPI did not manifest an evident pattern or scheme to delay the disposition of the case or a wanton failure to observe a mandatory requirement of the Rules. In fact, BPI, for the most part, exhibited diligence and reasonable dispatch in prosecuting its claim against Dando by immediately moving to set Civil Case No. 03-281 for Pre-Trial Conference after its receipt of Dando's Answer to the Complaint; and in instantaneously filing a Motion for Reconsideration of the 10 October 2003 Order of the RTC dismissing Civil Case No. 03-281.

GR No. 182426

2009-02-13

ZENAIDA POLANCO v. CARMEN CRUZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

It must be stressed that even if the plaintiff fails to promptly move for pre-trial without any justifiable cause for such delay, the extreme sanction of dismissal of the complaint might not be warranted if no substantial prejudice would be caused to the defendant, and there are special and compelling reasons which would make the strict application of the rule clearly unjustified.[22]

GR No. 168747

2007-10-19

VICTORIA REGNER v. CYNTHIA R. LOGARTA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As can be gleaned from the rule, there are three instances when the complaint may be dismissed due to the plaintiff's fault: (1) if he fails to appear during a scheduled trial, especially on the date for the presentation of his evidence in chief; (2) if he fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time; and (3) if he fails to comply with the rules or any order of the court.[28]

GR NO. 155488

2006-12-06

ERLINDA R. VELAYO-FONG v. SPS. RAYMOND AND MARIA HEDY VELAYO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[24] For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.[25] The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.[26] Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact.[27]

GR NO. 141860

2006-08-31

MALAYAN INSURANCE CO. v. ANCHOR ORIENT LINES-SINGAPORE

TINGA, J.

There is failure to prosecute when the plaintiff, being present, is not ready or is unwilling to proceed with the scheduled trial or when postponements in the past are due to the plaintiff's own making, intended to be dilatory or cause substantial prejudice on the part of the defendant.[36] The failure of a plaintiff to prosecute the action without any justifiable cause within a reasonable period of time will give rise to the presumption that he is no longer interested to obtain from the court the relief prayed for in his complaint; hence, the court is authorized to order the dismissal of the complaint on its own motion or on motion of the defendants. The presumption is not, by any means, conclusive because the plaintiff, on a motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal, may allege and establish a justifiable cause for such failure.[37]

GR NO. 164787

2006-01-31

MARLENE CRISOSTOMO v. FLORITO M. GARCIA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HAD ALREADY PRESCRIBED.[22] On the issue of whether the defense of prescription is a question of fact or law, the distinction is settled that there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts. On the other hand, a question of law exists when there is a doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a certain state of facts.[23] For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.[24] The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.[25]

GR NOS. 169131-32

2006-01-20

LULLETE S. KO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

We are not persuaded. In every action, the plaintiff is duty-bound to prosecute the same with utmost diligence and with reasonable dispatch to enable him to obtain the relief prayed for and, at the same time, minimize the clogging of the court dockets. The expeditious disposition of cases is as much the duty of the plaintiff as the court. It must be remembered that a defendant in a case likewise has the right to the speedy disposition of the action filed against him [7] considering that any delay in the proceedings entail prolonged anxiety and valuable time wasted.

	GR No. 208792 2015-07-22	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. SPS. ROBERTO AND TERESITA GENUINO LEONEN, J.
Respondents Spouses Genuino cannot rely on Olave v. Mistas as this involved a trial court Order dated October 20, 1997 dismissing the Complaint with prejudice.[33] The facts in Olave took place before the effectivity of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC on August 16, 2004.
	GR No. 201760 2013-09-16	LBL INDUSTRIES v. CITY OF LAPU-LAPU VELASCO JR., J.
Sec. 1, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court imposes upon the plaintiff the duty to set the case for pre-trial after the last pleading is served and filed. With this in mind, We have, in several cases,[16] ruled that the plaintiffs omission to promptly move that the case be set for pre-trial is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint due to his fault, particularly for failing to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 17.
	GR No. 192716 2012-06-13	ELOISA MERCHANDISING v. BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK VILLARAMA, JR., J.
By Decision dated March 30, 2010, the CA affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the case. The CA said that petitioners cannot justify their prolonged inaction by belatedly raising as issue the pending motion for reconsideration from the trial court's denial of their motion to admit the supplemental complaint, when all along they were aware that the case was at the pre-trial stage as in fact the case was twice dismissed for their failure to attend the pre-trial conference. Under the circumstances stated in its September 20, 2005 Order, the CA held that the trial court cannot be faulted for dismissing the case on the ground of petitioners' failure to prosecute their action, citing this Court's ruling in Olave v. Mistas.[23]
	GR No. 181020 2009-11-25	JAZMIN L. ESPIRITU v. VLADIMIR G. LAZARO NACHURA, J.
On June 29, 2007, the CA affirmed the dismissal of the case.[14] Citing Olave v. Mistas,[15] the CA stressed that it is plaintiff's duty to promptly set the case for pre-trial, and that failure to do so may result in the dismissal of the case. According to the CA, petitioners should not have waited for a supplemental answer or an order by the trial court and done nothing for more than 11 months from the receipt of the last pleading.
	GR No. 177456 2009-09-04	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. DOMINGO R. DANDO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The counsel of BPI invokes "heavy pressures of work" to explain his failure to file the Pre-Trial Brief with the RTC and to serve a copy thereof to Dando at least three days prior to the scheduled Pre-Trial Conference.[36] True, in Olave v. Mistas,[37] we did not find "heavy pressures of work" as sufficient justification for the failure of therein respondents' counsel to timely move for pre-trial. However, unlike the respondents in Olave,[38] the failure of BPI to file its Pre-Trial Brief with the RTC and provide Dando with a copy thereof within the prescribed period under Section 1, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, was the first and, so far, only procedural lapse committed by the bank in Civil Case No. 03-281. BPI did not manifest an evident pattern or scheme to delay the disposition of the case or a wanton failure to observe a mandatory requirement of the Rules. In fact, BPI, for the most part, exhibited diligence and reasonable dispatch in prosecuting its claim against Dando by immediately moving to set Civil Case No. 03-281 for Pre-Trial Conference after its receipt of Dando's Answer to the Complaint; and in instantaneously filing a Motion for Reconsideration of the 10 October 2003 Order of the RTC dismissing Civil Case No. 03-281.
	GR No. 182426 2009-02-13	ZENAIDA POLANCO v. CARMEN CRUZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It must be stressed that even if the plaintiff fails to promptly move for pre-trial without any justifiable cause for such delay, the extreme sanction of dismissal of the complaint might not be warranted if no substantial prejudice would be caused to the defendant, and there are special and compelling reasons which would make the strict application of the rule clearly unjustified.[22]
	GR No. 168747 2007-10-19	VICTORIA REGNER v. CYNTHIA R. LOGARTA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As can be gleaned from the rule, there are three instances when the complaint may be dismissed due to the plaintiff's fault: (1) if he fails to appear during a scheduled trial, especially on the date for the presentation of his evidence in chief; (2) if he fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time; and (3) if he fails to comply with the rules or any order of the court.[28]
	GR NO. 155488 2006-12-06	ERLINDA R. VELAYO-FONG v. SPS. RAYMOND AND MARIA HEDY VELAYO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[24] For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.[25] The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.[26] Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact.[27]
	GR NO. 141860 2006-08-31	MALAYAN INSURANCE CO. v. ANCHOR ORIENT LINES-SINGAPORE TINGA, J.
There is failure to prosecute when the plaintiff, being present, is not ready or is unwilling to proceed with the scheduled trial or when postponements in the past are due to the plaintiff's own making, intended to be dilatory or cause substantial prejudice on the part of the defendant.[36] The failure of a plaintiff to prosecute the action without any justifiable cause within a reasonable period of time will give rise to the presumption that he is no longer interested to obtain from the court the relief prayed for in his complaint; hence, the court is authorized to order the dismissal of the complaint on its own motion or on motion of the defendants. The presumption is not, by any means, conclusive because the plaintiff, on a motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal, may allege and establish a justifiable cause for such failure.[37]
	GR NO. 164787 2006-01-31	MARLENE CRISOSTOMO v. FLORITO M. GARCIA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HAD ALREADY PRESCRIBED.[22] On the issue of whether the defense of prescription is a question of fact or law, the distinction is settled that there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts. On the other hand, a question of law exists when there is a doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a certain state of facts.[23] For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.[24] The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.[25]
	GR NOS. 169131-32 2006-01-20	LULLETE S. KO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We are not persuaded. In every action, the plaintiff is duty-bound to prosecute the same with utmost diligence and with reasonable dispatch to enable him to obtain the relief prayed for and, at the same time, minimize the clogging of the court dockets. The expeditious disposition of cases is as much the duty of the plaintiff as the court. It must be remembered that a defendant in a case likewise has the right to the speedy disposition of the action filed against him [7] considering that any delay in the proceedings entail prolonged anxiety and valuable time wasted.

ELEUTERIO OLAVE v. TEODULO MISTAS