G.R. No. L-6908 December 22, 1954
Gregorio Rodillas, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Farmacia Central, Inc., defendant-appellee.

FACTS

The plaintiff-appellant, Gregorio Rodillas, filed an action to recover overtime pay and attorney’s fees. The defendant-appellee denied the claim and filed a counterclaim for damages. After issues were joined, the plaintiff’s counsel filed an ex-parte motion to set the case for immediate hearing. The court scheduled the hearing for May 19, 1953, at 1:00 p.m. On the day of the hearing, the plaintiff appeared but his counsel did not. Earlier that day, at about 11:00 a.m., the court had received a telegram from the plaintiff’s counsel, Atty. Suanes, requesting postponement until late June due to his busy schedule with a continuation of a criminal trial in Batangas. The defendant’s counsel objected to the postponement. The plaintiff stated he could not proceed with the trial in the absence of his counsel. Consequently, the trial court dismissed the case. A motion for reconsideration was filed but was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute due to the plaintiff’s counsel’s absence and last-minute request for postponement.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order of dismissal. The Court held that the failure of the plaintiff’s attorney to be present at the trial, when the party is unwilling to proceed, constitutes a failure to prosecute. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s counsel failed to comply with the Rules of Court (specifically sections 2, 3, and 4 of Rule 26) by presenting a motion for postponement on the very day of the trial without prior notice to the adverse party. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for postponement and dismissing the case. The dismissal did not deprive the plaintiff of due process of law. Costs were imposed against the plaintiff-appellant.