G.R. No. L-46182 February 28, 1978
JAIME GAPOY, petitioner, vs. HON. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL, Presiding Judge, Branch II, Court of First Instance of Iloilo, PURIFICACION GALVE and ANTONIO GUARANA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jaime Gapoy filed a complaint for reconveyance, ownership, possession, and damages against respondents, alleging he was the lawful owner of a parcel of land. He claimed that a portion was wrongfully registered in the respondents’ names through fraud and breach of trust, and that they had mortgaged it. Respondents countered, asserting exclusive ownership under a cadastral title. During trial, petitioner failed to appear on the scheduled date due to illness, supported by a certificate from a Rural Health Midwife. His counsel moved for postponement, which respondents did not oppose. Nevertheless, the respondent judge dismissed the case for failure to prosecute, conditioning its setting aside upon proof of an illness making attendance “really impossible,” evidenced by a proper medical certificate.
Petitioner filed a verified motion for reconsideration, explaining his illness and the merit of his cause. The respondent judge denied the motion, ruling it was fatally defective for not being accompanied by an affidavit of merit, drawing an analogy to requirements for a motion for new trial. Petitioner thus filed this certiorari petition, assailing the dismissal and denial as an abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute and in denying the motion for reconsideration for lack of an affidavit of merit.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found that the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion. While a court may dismiss a case for plaintiff’s failure to appear under Rule 17, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, such power must be exercised with care and a view to substantial justice, not as a penalty for neglect. The dismissal here was unduly harsh. The petitioner’s absence was justified by a medical certificate, and his counsel was present to move for postponement without opposition. The condition set by the judge for reinstatement—proof of impossibility to attend—was unreasonably strict, especially as the certificate came from a rural health midwife in an area without a practicing physician.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that the respondent judge erred in requiring an affidavit of merit for the motion for reconsideration. The motion sought merely to set aside the dismissal to continue the trial, not to hold a new trial after a concluded proceeding. The verified motion itself, coupled with the medical certificate, substantially showed the merit of petitioner’s cause and the reason for his absence. The judge’s rigid adherence to technicality, disregarding the liberal interpretation of rules to serve justice, constituted an abuse of discretion. The orders were set aside, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.