G.R. No. 202967 , August 05, 2015
ALICIA Y. LAUREL, SUBSTITUTED BY HER SOLE HEIR AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE JUAN MIGUEL Y. LAUREL, PETITIONER, VS. FERDINAND M. VARDELEON, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Alicia Y. Laurel filed a Complaint for recovery of possession and ownership and/or quieting of title against respondent Ferdinand M. Vardeleon concerning a 20,306-square meter island in Caticlan, Malay, Aklan. The Pre-Trial Order scheduled petitioner to present her evidence on September 7, 2005; October 12, 2005; and November 23, 2005. Petitioner’s counsel moved to reset the September 7, 2005 hearing, which the trial court granted provided petitioner defrayed the transportation expenses and appearance fee of respondent’s counsel. During the October 12, 2005 hearing, petitioner, present with substitute counsel and a witness, moved to postpone trial on the grounds that pending motions needed resolution and the substitute lawyer had not yet conferred with the witness. The trial court denied the oral motion to postpone, denied the pending motions for reconsideration from both parties, and dismissed the case for failure to prosecute pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court noted that petitioner failed to present evidence on two scheduled dates (September 7 and October 12, 2005). Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, ruling that petitioner’s lack of preparedness and complacent attitude warranted dismissal for failure to prosecute, and that her duty to prosecute with diligence was paramount.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals and the trial court committed serious error and grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s complaint for failure to prosecute.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution, and REINSTATED Civil Case No. 7249. The Court ruled that the dismissal for failure to prosecute was too harsh a penalty under the circumstances. The Court found that petitioner did not exhibit a clear pattern of non-compliance with court orders or rules that would justify dismissal. Petitioner had actively participated in the proceedings, and her failure to present evidence on October 12, 2005 was based on a belief that pending motions would be resolved first and that she still had another hearing date (November 23, 2005) to present evidence. The Court held that dismissal is a severe remedy and should be imposed only in clear cases of contumacious conduct or willful disregard of court authority. Since there was no showing of such conduct, and in the interest of substantial justice, especially considering petitioner’s advanced age and the property’s value, the case should be reinstated and decided on the merits. The Court ordered the remand of the case to the trial court for the reception of petitioner’s evidence.