GR 169177; (June, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 169177 ; June 30, 2006
SPS. DAN T. PAGUIRIGAN and MARY JANE PAGUIRIGAN, Petitioners, vs. PILHINO SALES CORPORATION, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Pilhino Sales Corporation filed a complaint for sum of money against petitioners (Civil Case No. MC98-214). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 214 dismissed this case on March 26, 1999, due to respondent’s failure to submit a pre-trial brief and appear at the pre-trial conference. The court denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration on June 2, 2000, noting the order’s finality but explicitly stating respondent was not precluded from re-filing the complaint. Respondent subsequently re-filed the complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. MC00-1260 before RTC Branch 210. After initial proceedings, Branch 210 dismissed this re-filed case on December 16, 2003, for respondent’s failure to appear at the pre-trial conference. Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which set aside the dismissal and ordered further proceedings. Petitioners sought review, arguing the first dismissal was with prejudice and constituted res judicata.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether Branch 210 and the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to entertain the re-filed case, and (2) whether respondent’s absence at the pre-trial warranted dismissal for failure to prosecute.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court held that the dismissal of the first case (MC98-214) was without prejudice and not an adjudication on the merits. Applying Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, a dismissal for a plaintiff’s failure to comply with rules or orders is without prejudice unless the court declares it to be with prejudice. The June 2, 2000, Order from Branch 214 explicitly stated the dismissal was without prejudice and that re-filing was permitted. Therefore, no res judicata attached, and Branch 210 properly acquired jurisdiction over the re-filed complaint. On the second issue, the Court found that the dismissal for failure to prosecute was improper. The test is whether the plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence. The record showed respondent’s counsel had attended previous settings, and delays were not solely attributable to respondent’s inaction. Absent a pattern of delay or wanton disregard of the rules, courts should hear cases on their merits. Thus, the dismissal order was correctly set aside to allow a full trial.