G.R. No. 83346 March 22, 1990
MEDRANO & ASSOCIATES, INC., petitioner, vs. ROXAS & CO., ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Medrano & Associates, Inc. filed an action for damages against respondent Roxas & Co. in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. On March 6, 1986, the trial court, motu proprio, ordered the dismissal of the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. On May 5, 1986, petitioner filed a “motion to set” with a request for subpoena, seeking to schedule a hearing. Counsel for petitioner received the copy of the March 6 dismissal order only on May 7, 1986, two days after filing the motion to set.
The trial court, acting on the motion to set, calendared the case for hearing in June 1986 through an unsigned order, and later reset it for September 23, 1986. Respondent filed a manifestation asserting that the March 6 dismissal order had become final. Before the presiding judge could rule, he was replaced. The new judge initially set the case for hearing but, upon respondent’s insistence regarding the finality of the dismissal, issued an order on December 3, 1986, cancelling the hearing due to the alleged finality of the March 6 order. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in declaring its March 6, 1986 order of dismissal final and executory, thereby cancelling further proceedings.

RULING

Yes, the trial court erred. The Supreme Court reversed the appealed orders. The legal logic centers on the trial court’s own subsequent actions effectively reconsidering its initial dismissal. While the “motion to set” filed on May 5, 1986 could not technically be a motion for reconsideration of the March 6 order (as notice of said order was received later), the trial court’s conduct demonstrated a clear intent to reinstate the case. By issuing orders—albeit one unsigned—setting the case for hearing on multiple dates in June and September 1986, the court effectively granted reconsideration and vacated its prior dismissal. This series of judicial actions estopped the court from later declaring its own dismissal order final.
Furthermore, the dismissal was explicitly “without prejudice,” allowing refiling. The Court emphasized that pre-trial had been conducted and some evidence presented. In the interest of substantial justice, and to avoid multiplicity of suits, it is preferable to continue the existing case rather than dismiss it on a technicality and force the petitioner to refile. The primordial end of justice is best served by disposing of cases on their merits. The records were thus remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.