G.R. No. 117385 February 11, 1999.
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CITIWIDE MOTORS INC., respondents.

FACTS

On October 6, 1983, respondent Citiwide Motors, Inc. (CMI) filed a Complaint for Nullification of Foreclosure and Auction Sale with Injunction against petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) before the RTC of Quezon City. After almost five years of resolving a preliminary injunction issue, the trial court set the case for pre-trial on June 21, 1988. On June 11, 1988, the entire records of the case were burned in a fire. On October 6, 1989, CMI filed a petition for reconstitution of the burned records. On January 11, 1990, the trial court directed both parties to examine and initial the pages of the annexes to the petition. On February 2, 1990, BPI’s counsel manifested he could not comply because the attending counsel had resigned and gone abroad, and the substituting counsel still had to locate records for comparison. On March 26, 1992, BPI moved to dismiss the complaint for CMI’s failure to reconstitute the records. The trial court denied the motion on April 29, 1992, and directed the parties to attend a conference on May 28, 1992, to expedite disposition, including submission to mediation. The conference was reset to August 4, 1992, and then to September 10, 1992. On September 10, 1992, the trial court dismissed the complaint “upon failure of (private respondent’s counsel) to appear in Court . . . evidencing lack of interest to pursue this case.” CMI’s counsel moved for reconsideration, alleging she failed to attend due to being physically indisposed from her monthly period. The motion was denied on December 3, 1992. CMI elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court’s order on September 27, 1994, and remanded the case for further proceedings. BPI filed the instant petition.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute after CMI’s counsel failed to attend a court-scheduled conference.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The trial court committed a reversible error in dismissing the complaint. The conference which counsel failed to attend was not a regular trial, a date for presentation of evidence-in-chief, or a pre-trial conference under the rules. It was merely a conference called to discover ways to expedite disposition, including mediation. Counsel’s single absence, with a reason provided (physical indisposition), and considering it was her first absence as new counsel, did not constitute a failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time or evidence a lack of interest. The rules on dismissal for plaintiff’s fault (failure to appear at trial, failure to prosecute for an unreasonable time, failure to comply with rules or court orders) were not applicable. Furthermore, BPI itself contributed to the delay by not immediately complying with the order to examine the reconstituted records and by filing a motion to dismiss. The mere filing of the petition for reconstitution by CMI was a manifestation of its interest in pursuing the case. The dismissal of a case rests on the sound discretion of the trial court, but such discretion must not be abused. In the absence of a pattern or scheme to delay, courts should decide to dispense rather than wield their authority to dismiss. The case was remanded to the trial court for resolution with dispatch.