G.R. No. L-2592; January 31, 1950
THE MUNICIPALITY OF DINGRAS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CORNELIO BONOAN, SOTERO SAMBRANO, FILEMON SACRO, PASCUALA BONOAN, AND JOSE BONOAN, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The Municipality of Dingras initiated a condemnation proceeding in 1939 to acquire a tract of land for the enlargement of a school site. The defendants agreed to the expropriation on the condition that their irrigation ditches through the land would not be obstructed, to which the municipality agreed. The plaintiff municipality deposited the required amount, took possession of the land in 1939 with the defendants’ conformity, and made improvements thereon. Commissioners were appointed and submitted an appraisal report. In 1947, the fiscal requested time to amend the complaint, and the court granted a continuance. In 1948, the trial court, motu proprio and without prior notice or hearing, dismissed the case for want of prosecution due to the fiscal’s failure to file the amended complaint. The fiscal moved for reconsideration, explaining the delay and stating an amendment was no longer necessary, but the motion was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the condemnation proceeding motu proprio for want of prosecution.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court revoked the dismissal order and reinstated the case. While dismissal for want of prosecution is generally within the trial court’s discretion, such discretion must not be abused. Here, the proceeding was already far advanced: the plaintiff had taken possession, made improvements, and the commissioners had submitted their appraisal report. Dismissal at that stage was wasteful and uncalled for. The proper measure would have been a rule to speed the cause. Furthermore, the proceeding served a public purpose, and the dismissal, having the effect of res judicata under the rules, constituted an adjudication on the merits. The trial court’s refusal to reconsider was not a sound exercise of discretion.

AI Generated by Armztrong.