G.R. No. L-44777. October 30, 1978.
ALEJANDRA ROASOL and FRUCTUOSO VIÑA (Spouses), and JESUS T. BALMORIA and CRUZA CAGA-ANAN (Spouses), petitioners, vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL, BRANCH 11, OZAMIZ CITY and VICTORIANO ROASOL, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Alejandra Roasol was the grantee of Free Patent No. V-193430 for Lot 1752, issued in 1961. Private respondent Victoriano Roasol, the grantee of a different lot (Lot 1843) in 1967, filed a suit for annulment of title and reconveyance over Lot 1752. The respondent Court of First Instance issued a preliminary injunction against petitioners, restraining them from possessing the land and harvesting its fruits, despite Alejandra’s patent and possession. The case dragged on for over two years. On July 21, 1976, when the case was called for hearing, private respondent and his counsel failed to appear. Petitioners moved to dismiss, and the court granted the motion, dismissing the case for failure to prosecute.
However, on August 19, 1976, the same court, presided by Judge Melecio A. Genato, granted private respondent’s motion for reconsideration and reinstated the case. This prompted petitioners to file the instant certiorari and prohibition proceeding, alleging grave abuse of discretion. They argued that the dismissal order was final and that reinstatement was improper, especially since private respondent’s motion did not contain the requisite affidavit of merit explaining his failure to appear.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion for reconsideration and reinstating Civil Case No. OZ-433 after it had been dismissed for failure to prosecute.

RULING

Yes, the respondent Court committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the writs of certiorari and prohibition. The legal logic is anchored on the finality of an order of dismissal for failure to prosecute and the mandatory requirements for setting aside such a dismissal. Under the Rules of Court, a dismissal for failure to prosecute has the effect of an adjudication on the merits, barring the refiling of the action. To set aside such a dismissal, a motion for reconsideration must be based on grounds specifically provided, such as fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, and must be accompanied by an affidavit of merit detailing the facts constituting the valid defense.
In this case, private respondent’s motion for reconsideration failed to include the required affidavit of merit. Even if the court were to waive this formal requirement, the reason given—the alleged excusable neglect of counsel—was insufficient. Counsel had received notice of the hearing and, having sought postponements on prior occasions, should have seasonably asked for another if unable to appear. The client is bound by the negligence of his counsel. The Supreme Court, citing precedents like Manila Railroad Co. v. Attorney General and Paredes v. Moya, emphasized that courts cannot capriciously and arbitrarily set aside such dismissals. By reinstating the case without a valid, substantiated ground, the respondent Court acted in a manner equivalent to a refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, constituting grave abuse of discretion. The order of July 21, 1976, dismissing the case, was thus reinstated.