GR L 8894; (May, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-8894 May 31, 1957
MARIA MATIAS DE BAUTISTA, assisted by her husband LORENZO BAUTISTA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JOSE TEODORO, JR., defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The plaintiff-appellant, Maria Matias de Bautista, is the lessee of a house owned by the defendant-appellee, Jose Teodoro, Jr. On September 8, 1954, she filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking to recover P10,000 for repair expenses on the leased house, annul a second mortgage executed in favor of the defendant due to undue influence, collect moral and exemplary damages from a detainer suit filed against her, and reduce the monthly rental from P300 to P200. The defendant filed a motion for a bill of particulars, requesting specifics on the lease contract, repairs, and the mortgage instrument. The court granted the motion on October 26, 1954, ordering the plaintiff to file an amended pleading or bill of particulars within ten days. The plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied. On November 17, 1954, the plaintiff moved for and was granted a two-week extension to file the bill of particulars. She failed to comply within this extended period. Consequently, on December 3, 1954, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute under Section 3, Rule 30. The court granted the dismissal on December 13, 1954. The plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint for her failure to comply with the court order to file a bill of particulars.
RULING
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal order. The Court held that the dismissal of an action under Section 3, Rule 30, for failure to comply with a court order rests on the sound discretion of the court, and every presumption favors the correctness of its action. The appellant failed to show any abuse of this discretion. The Court noted that after being granted an extension, the plaintiff did not file the required bill of particulars nor seek a further extension. Furthermore, Section 3, Rule 16, which allows the court to strike out a pleading for non-compliance with an order for a bill of particulars, supports the court’s authority to dismiss. The defendant was entitled to know with definiteness the details of the repairs and damages claimed to prepare a proper defense and determine if the action was filed within the statutory period. The order of dismissal was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.