G.R. No. L-7268 February 22, 1954
SEVERINA BASBANO Y OTROS, recurrentes, vs. EL HONORABLE RAMON IBAÑEZ ETC. Y OTROS, recurridos.

FACTS

In Civil Case No. V-875 of the Court of First Instance of Capiz, Basbano et al. vs. Dionio et al., a notice was issued by the clerk setting the hearing of the case for September 2, 1953, at 8:00 a.m. On August 4, the defendants, through their attorney Rojas, Jr., filed a motion asking for the postponement of the September 2 hearing and that said motion be set for hearing on August 15. At the hearing of the motion, no one appeared. On August 17, the respondent Judge issued an order dismissing the complaint. On August 28, the plaintiffs’ attorney asked for reconsideration of the dismissal order, which was denied on September 21.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint motu proprio before the scheduled hearing on the merits and without the plaintiff having failed to appear or prosecute the case.

RULING

Yes. The respondent Judge could have granted or denied the motion for postponement of the hearing, which was the matter submitted. He could not dismiss the complaint because it was not submitted for hearing. By dismissing the complaint, the Judge deprived the plaintiffs of their right to be heard on the merits at a previously scheduled hearing. He had no right to dismiss the complaint before the set date. Under Section 3, Rule 30, a court may motu proprio dismiss a complaint when the plaintiff “fails to appear at the time of the trial, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these rules or any order of the court.” In this case, even before the hearing of the case and upon no one’s petition, the Judge motu proprio dismissed the complaint, constituting a grave abuse of discretion.