GR 151215; (April, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 151215 ; April 5, 2010
PCI LEASING AND FINANCE, INC., Petitioner, vs. ANTONIO C. MILAN, Doing Business Under the Name and Style of “A. MILAN TRADING,” and LAURA M. MILAN, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner PCI Leasing filed a complaint for sum of money against respondents Antonio and Laura Milan. The summons could not be served as respondents had allegedly moved from their given address. PCI Leasing filed a Motion to Archive the case, which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied, citing that the circumstances did not fall under the archiving guidelines. The RTC then ordered PCI Leasing to actively prosecute the case within ten days. PCI Leasing subsequently filed a Motion for Issuance of Alias Summons. The RTC denied the first motion due to a defective notice of hearing. A second motion was set for hearing.
During the hearing for the second motion, PCI Leasing’s counsel arrived late. Finding no appearance when the case was called, the RTC issued an Order dismissing the complaint for failure to prosecute. PCI Leasing filed a motion for reconsideration, explaining its counsel’s late arrival, but the RTC denied it, stating PCI Leasing had been remiss in its duty to prosecute diligently over almost a year. PCI Leasing’s appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed for being filed out of time.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint for failure to prosecute.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. Dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 17, Section 3 requires a clear showing of an unreasonable length of time or a pattern of non-compliance with court orders. The legal logic is that dismissal is a severe sanction that should be used only in clear cases of contumacious conduct. Here, the delay was not protracted or unreasonable. The case was only eight months old from filing to dismissal. PCI Leasing was actively seeking to locate the defendants and secure alias summons, not sleeping on its rights. The single instance of counsel’s tardiness during a hearing on a procedural motion does not constitute a failure to prosecute warranting dismissal with prejudice. The RTC’s order was excessively harsh, not commensurate with the minor procedural lapse, and effectively deprived the petitioner of its day in court on a potentially meritorious claim. The dismissal order was therefore annulled and set aside, and the case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings.