Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JAZMIN L. ESPIRITU v. VLADIMIR G. LAZARO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 208792 2015-07-22	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. SPS. ROBERTO AND TERESITA GENUINO LEONEN, J.
Section 1 of 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. Under Section 3 of Rule 17, failure to comply with the said duty makes the case susceptible to dismissal for failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time or failure to comply with the rules.[35] (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
	GR No. 192716 2012-06-13	ELOISA MERCHANDISING v. BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Under Section 3,[24] Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, the failure on the part of the plaintiff, without any justifiable cause, to comply with any order of the court or the Rules, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, may result in the dismissal of the complaint either motu proprio or on motion by the defendant. 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.[25] The burden to show that there are compelling reasons that would make a dismissal of the case unjustified is on the petitioners.[26]
	GR No. 175409 2011-09-07	PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION v. EXPLORER MARITIME CO. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In the fairly recent case of Espiritu v. Lazaro,[7] this Court, in affirming the dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute on account of the omission of the plaintiff therein to move to set the case for pre-trial for almost one year from their receipt of the Answer, issued several guidelines in effecting such dismissal: Respondents Lazaro filed the Cautionary Answer with Manifestation and Motion to File a Supplemental/Amended Answer on July 19, 2002, a copy of which was received by petitioners on August 5, 2002. Believing that the pending motion had to be resolved first, petitioners waited for the court to act on the motion to file a supplemental answer. Despite the lapse of almost one year,[8] petitioners kept on waiting, without doing anything to stir the court into action.