Civil Procedure Case Digest

 John Wesley
Wesley School
School of Law and Governance
Governance
Magundayao, Khay Ann

CONRADO CALALANG vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and FILIPINAS MANUFACTURERS BANK

Shorter Narration of Facts:

Respondent
Respond ent Filipinas Manufacturers Bank filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money against petitioner 
Conrado Calalang and 3 other defendants namely, Hugo M. Arca, Rio Arturo Salceda and the Acropolis
rading Corporation !ith the Court of First "nstance of Ri#al.

Calalang filed a motion for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the plaintiff had no cause of action
against him. his necessitated the filing of an opposition from the plaintiff, a reply to said opposition from the
defendant Calalang, and a re$oinder to the said reply. he defendant Arca, on the other hand, initially sought 
an e%tension of time to file a responsi&e pleading, then filed a motion for a 'ill of particulars, then later also a
motion to dismiss the case. After his motion to dismiss !as denied Arca filed a motion for reconsideration. "n
all thes
these
e inci
incident
dents
s plea
pleading
dingss and counter(ple
counter(pleadin
adings
gs !ere filed and hea
hearing
rings
s hel
heldd on the moti
motions
ons,, !hic
!hich
h
resulted in the case dragging on for a considera'le time. ) 

he case !as set for pre(trial se&eral times !hen, as aforesta
aforestated,
ted, the issues !ere not yet $oined for only Arca
had initially filed his ans!er to the complaint. he case !as ordered dismissed at least t!o *+ times !hen the
 plaintiff-s counsel failed to appear at these pre(trials 'ut the dismissals !ere reconside
reconsidered
red and the class set 
ane!.

 Another factor that contri'uted

 Another contri'uted to the confusion
confusion in the proceedi
proceedings
ngs and the delay in the case is the fact
fact that the
case !as assigned from one $udge to another due pro'a'ly to the $udicial reorgani#ation that took place. he
records sho! that there !ere no less than four * $udges !ho handled the case ( /udges Segundo 0osa,
Benigno M. 1uno, Federico Alikpala, /r., and 0osimo Angeles.

he ans!er of defendant Arca to the complaint !as filed only on 2cto'er 3, 4567 !hile that of defendant 
Calalang !as filed only on 8o&em'er 4, 4569.

Facts:
On April 29, 1980, respondent
respondent Filipinas Manufacturers
Manufacturers Bank filed a c!"laint f# cllectin f a s$! f 
!ne% against petitioner Conrado Calalang and  ot!er defendants na"el#, $ugo M. Arca, %io Arturo &alceda
and t!e Acropolis 'rading Corporation (it! t!e Court of First )nstance of %i*al Unde#
%i*al Unde# &$d'e (sa)

Petitine#* afte# +a,in' -een se#,ed .it+ s$!!ns  on Ma# 19, 1980, filed a Mtin t Dis!iss on
Petitine#* Dis!iss  on +une
2, 1980. '!e ot!er su""oned defendant, H$' M) A#ca* filed a Mtin f# Bill f Pa#tic$la#s  on +une ,
1980. '!e t(o ot!er defendants na"el#,
na"el#, t!e Acropolis 'rading Corporation
Corporation and %io Arturo &alceda (ere also
su""oned -ut nl% a cle#/0e!"l%ee f t+e Ac#"lis T#adin' C#"#atin #ecei,ed t+e s$!!ns  (!ile
A#t$# R) Salceda .as n ln'e# #esidin' at +is 'i,en add#ess .

'!e Motion for Bill of articulars (as granted on August 2/, 1981 (!ile, t!e Motion to is"iss filed -#
petitionerr Calalang (as left unresolve
petitione unresolved.
d. '!e last pleading filed regarding t!e Motion to is"iss (as t!e repl#
of petitioner Calalang to t!e opposition to t!e "otion to dis"iss -# respondent -ank (!ic! (as filed on August
, 1980.

On Augus
Augustt 1/, 1981,
1981, Batas Pa!-ansa Bl') 123 4T+e &$dicia#% Re#'ani5atin Act6 a""#,ed   -# t!en
resident Marcos.

On 3ove"-er
3ove"-er 24, 1981, defendant
defendant Arca filed a Moti
Motion
on to is"
is"iss
iss (!ic
(!ic!
! nec
necessi
essitate
tated
d t!e filing of vari
various
ous
pleadings in relation t!ereto -# respondent -ank !erein, and defendant Arca.

On Ma# 2, 198, a !earing (as sc!eduled under &$d'e Fl#entin Dela Pe7a of t!e Makati %egional 'rial
Court, Branc! 1/. But t!en, t!e case (as transferred to t!e Makati %egional 'rial Court, Branc! 10, presided
 Civil Procedure Case Digest
 John Wesley School of Law and Governance
Magundayao, Khay Ann
over -# &$d'e Beni'n M) P$n (!o ordered to file t!eir ans(ers in t!e co"plaint (it!in t!e regle"entar#
period.

On Octo-er , 1985, 6ella %e#es 7ergara Alcala and Associates entered its appearance as counsel for 
respondent -ank.

On Octo-er 0, 198, defendant Arca filed !is ans(er (it! co"pulsor# counterclai" to t!e co"plaint (!ic!
(as received -# respondent -ank s for"er counsel, "erito M. &alva and Associates on 3ove"-er /, 198.

)t appears t!at t!is case !as -een set se,e#al ti!es f# "#e0t#ial 4 3ove"-er 29, 198, +anuar# 29, 1985, Ma#
12,1985, 3ove"-er 19, 1985, +anuar# 1/, 1984 and Fe-ruar# 24, 1984. For t!e first t(o sc!eduled !earings,
#es"ndent -an/8s c$nsel failed t a""ea# ca$sin' t+e dis!issal .it+$t "#e9$dice  of t!e case, (!ic!
(as nevert!eless set aside upon respondent -anks "otion for reconsideration of t!e dis"issal. '!e 3ove"-er 
19, 1985 !earing (as transferred to +anuar# 1/, 1984 upon agree"ent -# -ot! counsels. For t!e last t(o
sc!eduled dates counsel for t!e defendant H$' A#ca failed t a""ea#)

+udge Benigno M. uno (as replaced -# &$d'e Fede#ic ) Ali/"ala* &# . as t!e presiding :udge of t!e Makati
%egional 'rial Court, Branc! 10 (!o, on Marc! 5, 1984, issued an Order t!at infor"ing t!e plaintiff t!at it
s!all not consider defendant Ac#"lis T#adin' C#"#atin as +a,in' -een "#"e#l% -#$'+t $nde# t+e
 9$#isdictin f t+is C$#t in ,ie. f t+e i!"#"e# se#,ice f s$!!ns  on said corporation &ec. 1 of %ule
1/, %evised %ules of Court and ordering to send a cop# of t!e denial of t!e Motion to is"iss filed -#
etitioner Calalang since t!ere (as no Motion for %econsideration nor an# ans(er fro" t!e co"plaint (as filed
-# t!e defendant.

)n response to t!e order, t!e respondent Bank filed a "anifestation stating t!at;
1. )t is ver# "uc! interested in prosecuting t!e co"plaint against t!e defendants Acropolis 'rading and
&alceda<
2. ursuant to t!is, counsel !as re=uested t!e Credit )nvestigation epart"ent of plaintiff to verif# t!e correct
address of said defendants including all necessar# facts for t!e proper service of su""ons on t!e"<
. >pon verification, plaintiff (ill t!en "ove for t!e issuance of Alias &u""ons on t!e said defendants.

'!ereafter, on Marc! 2/, 1984, petitioner Calalang !,ed t dis!iss  t!e co"plaint on t!e ground t!at
respondent -ank failed t "#sec$te t+e case f# an $n#easna-le len't+ f ti!e)

On April , 1984, t!e trial court issued anot!er Order, ?t!at if plaintiff s!all still -e una-le to cause service of 
alias su""ons on t!e said defendants (it!in t!irt# 0 da#s fro" plaintiffs receipts !ereof, t!en t!is Court (ill
dis"iss t!e co"plaint as against said defendants and proceedings !erein s!all -e li"ited to t!e defendants on
(!o" su""ons !ad -een served as of t!e lapse of said 0@da#s period.

&$d'e (si! () An'eles of t!e Makati %egional 'rial Court, Branc! 8, to (!o" t!e case (as assigned
after +udge Federico . Alikpala, +r., issued an Order, dated +ul# 15, 1984, den%in' t+e Mtin t Dis!iss
filed -% "etitine# f# lac/ f !e#it) '!e "otion for alias su""ons (as granted. ntr# of appearance of Att#.
Crisosto"o +. anguilan as counsel for respondent -ank (as noted in t!e sa"e order.

On 3ove"-er 15, 1984, t!e trial court issued an Order setting t!e pre@trial of t!e case for +anuar# 4, 1988 at
8;0 a.". -ut t!e #es"ndent -an/8s c$nsel a##i,ed 1; !in$tes late  or at 8;/ a.".. $o(ever, t!e case
+ad al#ead% -een dis!issed . :For failure of plaintiff-s counsel to appear inspite of notice and considering that 
this case has 'een pending for se&en *9 years, !ithout plaintiff ha&ing taken positi&e steps to prosecute the
same, it is here'y ;"SM"SS<; pursuant to Section 3, Rule 49, Rules of Court. ;efendants- counterclaim is
like!ise dismissed.= 

On +anuar# 12, 1988, counsel for t!e respondent -ank filed a Mtin f# Recnside#atin of t!e order of 
dis"issal citing as #easn f# +is late a##i,al >the unusually hea&y traffic he encountered along ?amias Road 
 Civil Procedure Case Digest
 John Wesley School of Law and Governance
Magundayao, Khay Ann
in @ue#on City, !hich !as caused 'y a stalled $eepney along the main thoroughfare.>  '!e !tin .as denied
on +anuar# 25, 1988.

'!e respondent -ank appealed t!e dis"issal to t!e Court of Appeals ) CA #de#ed t #e!and t+e case -ac/
t t+e c$#t f #i'in f# f$#t+e# "#ceedin's)  M% (as like(ise denied.

)ssues;

1. !et!er t!e CA erred in a-solving respondent -ank for t!e dela# in t!e pursuit of t!e case and declaring t!e
+anuar# 4, 1988 pre@trial as pre"ature<

2. !et!er t!e case s!ould -e dis"issed for failure to prosecuteD

R$lin':

1. '!e se,en0%ea# dela% is nt att#i-$ta-le to t!e respondent -ank alone -ut to ci#c$!stances -e%nd its
cnt#l) Considering t!e 9$dicial #e#'ani5atin and t+e n$!e#$s instances raised -# -ot! petitioner and
respondent -ank as contri-uting to t!e dela#, petitioner cannot no( clai" t!at respondent -anks Ea-use of 
 :udicial lenienc# and tolerance is t!e single greatest co"ponent of t!is dela#E

'!e pre@trial conference sc!eduled for +anuar# 8, 1984 (as nt "#e!at$#e. A pre@trial cannot validl# -e !eld
until t!e last pleading !as -een filed, (!ic! last pleading "a# -e t!e plaintiffs repl#, ecept (!ere t!e period to
file t!e last pleading !as lapsed. '!e period to appear and file t!e necessar# pleading !aving epired on t!e
 Acropolis 'rading Corporation, t!e lo(er court can direct t!at a pre@trial conference -e !eld a"ong t!e
ans(ering defendants. $o(ever, t!oug! it is .it+in t+e disc#etin f t+e t#ial c$#t t decla#e a "a#t% nn0
s$ited f# nn0a""ea#ance in t+e "#e0t#ial cnfe#ence* s$c+ disc#etin !$st nt -e a-$sed . Considering
t!e fact t!at t!e counsel for t!e plaintiffGrespondent -ank did arrive for t!e pre@trial conference, t!oug! a -it late
and t!at counsel for t!e defendant (as !i"self also late, t!e trial court s!ould !ave called t!e case again.

Unless a "a#t%8s cnd$ct is s ne'li'ent* i##es"nsi-le* cnt$!aci$s* # dilat#% as t "#,ide

s$-stantial '#$nds f# dis!issal f# nn0a""ea#ance , t!e courts s!ould consider lesser sanctions (!ic!
(ould still a"ount into ac!ieving t!e desired end.

In t+e a-sence f clea# lac/ f !e#it # intentin t dela%* 9$stice is -ette# se#,ed -% a -#ief 
cntin$ance* trial on t!e "erits, and final disposition of t!e cases -efore t!e court.

 Again, petitioners contention t!at t!e fact t!at respondent -ank +ad nt ca$sed se#,ice f s$!!ns  on t!e
t(o ot!er defendants, indicated Ea-use of :udicial lenienc# and toleranceE is -e#eft f !e#it)

2) '!e acts of t!e respondent -ank do not "anifest lack of interest to prosecute, in t!e a-sence of proof t!at it
indeed a-andoned or intended to a-andon its case against petitioner and t!e ot!er defendants. 'o -e a
sufficient ground for dis"issal, dela% !$st nt nl% -e len't+% -$t als $nnecessa#% and dilat#%
#es$ltin' in t+e t#iflin' f 9$dicial "#cesses)

Dis!issal f a case f# fail$#e t "#sec$te  is a "atter addressed to t!e s$nd disc#etin f t+e c$#t.
'!at discretion, !o(ever, "ust not -e a-used. '!us * c$#ts !a% nt ente# a dis!issal* .+ic+ is nt
.a##anted -# t!e circu"stances of t!e case. '!e availa-ilit# of t!is recourse "ust -e deter"ined according to
eac! cases procedural !istor#, situation at t!e ti"e of t!e dis"issal and (!et!er, and under t!e circu"stances
of t!e particular case, t!e plaintiff is c!argea-le (it! (ant of due diligence in failing to proceed (it! reasona-le
pro"ptitude.

The desideratum of a speedy disposition of cases should not, if at all possible, result in the precipitate
loss of a party's right to present evidence and either in plaintiff's being non-suited or the defendant's
being pronounced liable under an ex-parte judgment
 Civil Procedure Case Digest
 John Wesley School of Law and Governance
Magundayao, Khay Ann
Cited Case:
!arahay vs !elicor test for dis"issal of a case due to failure to prosecute

!ile a court can dis"iss a case on t!e ground of non proseuitur , t!e real test for t!e eercise of suc! po(er 
is (!et!er, under t!e circu"stances, "laintiff is c+a#'ea-le .it+ .ant f d$e dili'ence in failin' t
"#ceed .it+ #easna-le "#!"tit$de. )n t!e a-sence of a pattern or sc!e"e to dela# t!e disposition of t!e
case or a (anton failure to o-serve t!e "andator# re=uire"ent of t!e rules on t!e part of t!e plaintiff, as in t!e
case at -ar, courts s!ould decide to dispense (it! rat!er t!an (ield t!eir aut!orit# to dis"iss.