G.R. No. L-20872 August 10, 1968
DIGNA BALDEVARONA VDA. DE GOMEZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. AMBROSIO FORTALEZA, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

The plaintiff, Digna Baldevaraona Vda. de Gomez, filed an action for recovery of money. The Municipal Court of Bacolod City rendered judgment in her favor, sentencing the defendant, Ambrosio Fortaleza, to pay P3,200 with interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. The defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. Both parties adopted their pleadings, and the case was set for hearing. After several postponements, approximately six months after the appeal was perfected, the plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was filed out of time. She alleged that a copy of the municipal court’s decision was mailed to defendant’s counsel on January 3, 1962, and the appeal was perfected on January 30, 1962, beyond the 15-day reglementary period. The Court of First Instance denied the motion to dismiss, finding that defendant’s counsel’s failure to claim the registered mail containing the decision was excusable. On October 10, 1962, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying her motion to dismiss, set for hearing on October 12, 1962. On October 12, 1962, the Court of First Instance denied the motion for reconsideration and also dismissed the case for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute, as she was not ready to present evidence while the defendant was ready for trial. The plaintiff appealed directly to the Supreme Court from the order dismissing her complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to prosecute.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the case for trial on the merits. The Court held that while the plaintiff was not prepared for trial on October 12, 1962, and had not sought a postponement, she had a pending motion for reconsideration concerning the denial of her motion to dismiss the defendant’s appeal and intended to elevate the matter if denied. The Court noted the plaintiff appeared to have a meritorious claim, as evidenced by the municipal court’s judgment in her favor. Dismissing the complaint would constitute an adjudication on the merits under Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, effectively ending her claim. The Court extended liberal treatment to the plaintiff, similar to that given to the defendant regarding the excusable delay in perfecting his appeal, to give her a fair chance to vindicate her right, despite delays for which both parties were at fault. The Supreme Court declined to rule on the correctness of the order denying the motion to dismiss the defendant’s appeal, as that issue was moot and academic, the present appeal being solely from the dismissal of the complaint.