GR L 46244; (August, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-46244 August 18, 1988
LIRAG, MANALAC, SARANGAYA, and TANCO SECURITIES CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE RICARDO D. GALANO in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of Branch XIII, CFI of Manila, ESTRELLITA A. RAMOS, JOHNNY RAMOS, and CRISPIN APUNTAR, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Lirag, Manalac, Sarangaya, and Tanco Securities Corporation filed a sum of money case against private respondents before the Court of First Instance of Manila. The private respondents filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars, arguing that the complaint’s allegations regarding each defendant’s accountability were vague. The respondent Judge granted the motion and ordered the petitioner to file a Bill of Particulars or an Amended Complaint within ten days from receipt of the order.
Petitioner failed to comply with the initial order. After private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss, the court granted petitioner a five-day extension. Petitioner then requested and was granted a seven-day extension. Despite this second extension, petitioner again failed to comply and requested a third extension of seven days. After the expiration of this final period with still no compliance, private respondents filed a second Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing for this motion, instead filing an opposition citing reasons like pressure of work and office relocation. The respondent Judge granted the motion and dismissed the case.
ISSUE
Whether or not the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint and in refusing to reconsider the dismissal order.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the court’s authority under the Rules of Court to enforce its orders and control its docket. Section 1(c), Rule 12 provides that if an order for a bill of particulars is not obeyed, the court may strike out the pleading or make such other order as it deems just. Concurrently, Section 3, Rule 17 allows dismissal for failure to prosecute an action for an unreasonable length of time or to comply with court rules or orders.
The Court found that petitioner repeatedly failed to comply with the lawful orders to clarify its complaint despite multiple extensions granted. This constituted a failure to prosecute. The dismissal was a just order under Rule 12 and a proper exercise of discretion under Rule 17. The dismissal having been for failure to comply with a court order, it correctly carried the effect of an adjudication on the merits, as the trial court did not specify otherwise. Petitioner’s claim of a meritorious case was unavailing, as having a potentially valid claim does not excuse disregard of procedural rules and court directives. The opportunities given to petitioner constituted due process. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.