Scribd
Upload
79 views2 pages

Calalang vs. CA, 217 SCRA 462 G.R. No. 103185 January 22, 1993

The respondent bank filed a collection case against the petitioner and three other defendants. The petitioner filed a motion to dismiss which was not resolved for over a year. The petitioner then moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the respondent failed to prosecute the case for an unreasonable length of time. The Court held that to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute, the delay must be unnecessary and dilatory, not merely lengthy. It was not established that the respondent failed to act with due diligence or intended to delay the case. Therefore, dismissal was not warranted under the circumstances.

Uploaded by

Caleb Josh Pacana
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
79 views2 pages

Calalang vs. CA, 217 SCRA 462 G.R. No. 103185 January 22, 1993

The respondent bank filed a collection case against the petitioner and three other defendants. The petitioner filed a motion to dismiss which was not resolved for over a year. The petitioner then moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the respondent failed to prosecute the case for an unreasonable length of time. The Court held that to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute, the delay must be unnecessary and dilatory, not merely lengthy. It was not established that the respondent failed to act with due diligence or intended to delay the case. Therefore, dismissal was not warranted under the circumstances.

Uploaded by

Caleb Josh Pacana
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Caleb Josh T.

Pacana
G.R. No. 103185 January 22, 1993
CONRADO CALALANG, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS and FILIPINAS MANUFACTURERS BANK, respondents.
Topic: Effect of failure to file (sec. 5, Rule 18)
Ponente: CAMPOS, JR., J.
Facts:
Respondent Filipinas Manufacturers Bank filed a complaint for collection of a sum of
money1against petitioner Conrado Calalang and 3 other defendants namely, Hugo M. Arca, Rio
Arturo Salceda and the Acropolis Trading Corporation with the Court of First Instance.
Petitioner, after having been served with summons on May 19, 1980, filed a Motion to Dismiss
on June 2, 1980. The other summoned defendant, Hugo M. Arca, filed a Motion for Bill of
Particulars on June 5, 1980. The two other defendants namely, the Acropolis Trading
Corporation and Rio Arturo Salceda were also summoned but only a clerk-employee of the
Acropolis Trading Corporation received the summons while Arturo R. Salceda was no longer
residing at his given address.
Over a year after, the Motion for Bill of Particulars was granted. Meanwhile, the Motion to
Dismiss filed by petitioner Calalang was left unresolved. The last pleading filed regarding the
Motion to Dismiss was the reply of petitioner Calalang to the opposition to the motion to
dismiss by respondent bank
This case has been set several times for pre-trial. Petitioner Calalang moved to dismiss the
complaint on the ground that respondent bank failed to prosecute the case for an
unreasonable length of time.
Issue:
WON there was failure of the plaintiff to prosecute.
Held:
To be a sufficient ground for dismissal, delay must not only be lengthy but also unnecessary and
dilatory resulting in the trifling of judicial processes.
In Marahay vs. Melicor, the Court set forth the test for dismissal of a case due to failure to
prosecute, to wit:
While a court can dismiss a case on the ground of non prosequitur, the real test for the exercise
of such power is whether, under the circumstances, plaintiff is chargeable with want of due
diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude. In the absence of a pattern or
scheme to delay the disposition of the case or a wanton failure to observe the mandatory
requirement of the rules on the part of the plaintiff, as in the case at bar, courts should decide
to dispense with rather than wield their authority to dismiss.
Dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the
court. That discretion, however, must not be abused. Thus, courts may not enter a dismissal
which is not warranted by the circumstances of the case. The availability of this recourse must
be determined according to each case's procedural history, situation at the time of the
dismissal and whether, and under the circumstances of the particular case, the plaintiff is
chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude.

You might also like