GR 125468; (October, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 125468 ; October 9, 2000
PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NEW COTTON (PHIL.) CORP., LAN SHING CHIN, SHIN MAY WAN and NELSON KHO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Producers Bank filed a complaint for collection of a loan against respondents. After initial proceedings, including an attachment, only respondent Nelson Kho was served summons and filed an Answer. The bank experienced delays in serving summons to the other respondents, eventually resorting to publication. The case saw numerous postponements, primarily at the bank’s instance. Notably, the bank and its counsel failed to appear at a scheduled pre-trial conference. Later, during trial, the bank’s counsel failed to present its witnesses on the scheduled date, leading the trial court to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute upon Kho’s motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.
ISSUE
Did the appellate court err in affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint for failure to prosecute, and should such dismissal be with or without prejudice?
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the dismissal with prejudice. The legal logic centers on the plaintiff’s duty to prosecute its case diligently. A dismissal for failure to prosecute is governed by Rule 17, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, which generally results in an adjudication upon the merits (with prejudice) unless otherwise declared by the court. The Court emphasized that while dismissals for failure to prosecute are addressed to the court’s sound discretion, such discretion must be exercised wisely to prevent undue delays that violate the constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases. Here, the bank, a sophisticated entity with legal resources, exhibited a pattern of negligence and complacency through multiple failures: to appear at pre-trial, to secure witnesses for trial, and to diligently pursue service of summons. This conduct trifled with the defendant’s right to a speedy trial and wasted judicial time. Declaring the dismissal without prejudice would circumvent the rule and frustrate its purpose of preventing unreasonable delay. Thus, the dismissal with prejudice was proper.