This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-10-22 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| "The dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute has the effect of adjudication on the merits, and is necessarily understood to be with prejudice to the filing of another action, unless otherwise provided in the order of dismissal. Stated differently, the general rule is that dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute is to be regarded as an adjudication on the merits and with prejudice to the filing of another action, and the only exception is when the order of dismissal expressly contains a qualification that the dismissal is without prejudice."[21] | |||||
|
2014-06-25 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The afore-quoted provision enumerates the instances when a complaint may be dismissed due to the plaintiff's fault: (1) if he fails to appear on the date for the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint; (2) if he fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time; or (3) if he fails to comply with the Rules or any order of the court. The dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute has the effect of adjudication on the merits, and is necessarily understood to be with prejudice to the filing of another action, unless otherwise provided in the order of dismissal. Stated differently, the general rule is that dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute is to be regarded as an adjudication on the merits and with prejudice to the filing of another action, and the only exception is when the order of dismissal expressly contains a qualification that the dismissal is without prejudice.[26] In the case at bar, petitioners claim that the Order does not in any language say that the dismissal is without prejudice and, thus, the requirement that the dismissal be on the merits is present. | |||||
|
2013-06-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| With respect to the second argument, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the ruling of the CA in its Resolution dated May 26, 2006 that for petitioner's failure to invoke her right to present evidence, despite the clear ruling by the RTC that she is civilly liable, she is deemed to have waived such right. Petitioner may not argue that her right to due process was violated, because she was given the opportunity to raise this issue a number of times both in the RTC and the CA. Petitioner does not dispute that neither in her Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of the RTC nor in her Petition for Review, as well as in her Memorandum filed with the CA, did she raise the issue of her right to present evidence on the civil aspect of the present case. As correctly observed by the CA, it was only in her Motion for Reconsideration of the CA Decision that she brought up such matter. Where a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he cannot be said to have been denied due process of law.[11] The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense.[12] Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of due process.[13] The question is not whether petitioner succeeded in defending her rights and interests, but simply, whether she had the opportunity to present her side of the controversy.[14] | |||||
|
2013-03-06 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| While it is within the trial court's discretion to dismiss motu proprio the complaint on the ground of plaintiff's failure to prosecute, it must be exercised with caution. Resort to such action must be determined according to the procedural history of each case, the situation at the time of the dismissal, and the diligence (or the lack thereof) of the plaintiff to proceed therein.[21] As the Court held in Gomez v. Alcantara,[22] if a lesser sanction would achieve the same result, then dismissal should not be resorted to. | |||||
|
2013-03-06 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| While it is within the trial court's discretion to dismiss motu proprio the complaint on the ground of plaintiff's failure to prosecute, it must be exercised with caution. Resort to such action must be determined according to the procedural history of each case, the situation at the time of the dismissal, and the diligence (or the lack thereof) of the plaintiff to proceed therein.[21] As the Court held in Gomez v. Alcantara,[22] if a lesser sanction would achieve the same result, then dismissal should not be resorted to. | |||||
|
2010-04-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Gomez v. Alcantara[69] explains that "[t]he aforequoted provision enumerates the instances when a complaint may be dismissed due to the plaintiff's fault: (1) if he fails to appear on the date for the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint; (2) if he fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time; or (3) if he fails to comply with the Rules or any order of the court. The dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute has the effect of adjudication on the merits, and is necessarily understood to be with prejudice to the filing of another action, unless otherwise provided in the order of dismissal. Stated differently, the general rule is that dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute is to be regarded as an adjudication on the merits and with prejudice to the filing of another action, and the only exception is when the order of dismissal expressly contains a qualification that the dismissal is without prejudice." | |||||