G.R. No. L-14882; June 28, 1963
DACIANO PALAMI, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. POTENCIANO LARRAZABAL, as Acting City Mayor, RAFAEL OMEGA, as Acting City Treasurer and GAUDENCIO V. TABUZO, as City Auditor, all of Ormoc City, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

The petitioners-appellants were employees of the Ormoc City government whose positions were abolished by a municipal board resolution in January 1956, leading to their removal via an executive order. They filed a petition for mandamus and damages in February 1956, alleging the abolition was illegal. The case was set for trial in March 1958. During the initial hearing, the presiding judge, Judge Debuque, granted the petitioners’ counsel leave to file an amended petition to substitute incumbent officials and include the city as a respondent. An order was issued giving them until March 29, 1958, to amend, but they failed to comply. Subsequently, on June 4, 1958, Judge Debuque issued another order extending the deadline to June 21, 1958. This order was misfiled with another case’s records.
Before this new deadline expired, Judge Debuque was transferred and succeeded by Judge Estenzo. On June 18, 1958, Judge Estenzo, acting motu proprio, dismissed the petition without prejudice for alleged lack of interest to prosecute. The petitioners received this dismissal order on June 23. However, on June 20, 1958—within the period granted by Judge Debuque’s June 4 order—they had filed their amended petition. The new judge denied its admission and, upon motion for reconsideration, amended the dismissal to be with prejudice.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed reversible error in dismissing the petition with prejudice, despite the petitioners having filed their amended pleading within the period granted by a prior valid court order.

RULING

Yes, the trial court committed a reversible error. The Supreme Court found the dismissal improper. The delay in prosecution was not solely attributable to the petitioners. The record showed that the initial postponement in March 1958 to allow amendment was with the court’s suggestion and involved a mutual agreement to submit a partial stipulation of facts, with no objection from respondents noted. Critically, Judge Debuque’s June 4 order, granting an extension until June 21 to file the amended petition, was a valid exercise of judicial discretion based on his familiarity with the case’s progress. The petitioners complied by filing on June 20. The successor judge, in dismissing the case, improperly interfered with this prior discretionary ruling without weighty justification, especially since the petitioners were not in default at the time of the motu proprio dismissal. The failure to prosecute was not manifest, as the petitioners were actively following the court’s directives. Therefore, the orders of dismissal were set aside, and the case was remanded for further proceedings, except for one petitioner who had withdrawn.