G.R. No. 208792 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, VS. SPOUSES ROBERTO AND TERESITA GENUINO.

Ruling

Accordingly, the ends of justice and fairness would best be served if the parties are given the full opportunity to litigate their claims and the real issues involved in the case are threshed out in a full-blown trial. Besides, petitioners would not be prejudiced should the case proceed as they are not stripped of any affirmative defenses nor deprived of due process of law. This is not to say that adherence to the Rules could be dispensed with. However, exigencies and situations might occasionally demand flexibility in their application. Indeed, on several occasions, the Court relaxed the rigid application of the rules of procedure to afford the parties opportunity to fully ventilate the merits of their cases. This is in line with the time-honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. Technicality and procedural imperfection should thus not serve as basis of decisions. Finally, A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC or the new Guidelines To Be Observed By Trial Court Judges And Clerks Of Court In The Conduct Of Pre-Trial And Use Of Deposition-Discovery Measures , which took effect on August 16, 2004, aims to abbreviate court proceedings, ensure prompt disposition of cases and decongest court dockets, and to further implement the pre-trial guidelines laid down in Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated January 15, 1999. A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC states that: Within five (5) days from date of filing of the reply, the plaintiff must promptly move ex-parte that the case be set for pre-trial conference. If the plaintiff fails to file said motion within the given period, the Branch COC shall issue a notice of pre-trial. [37] As such, the clerk of court of Branch 17 of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos should issue a notice of pre-trial to the parties and set the case for pre-trial. (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) On the other hand, this court has sustained dismissals due to plaintiff's fault after finding that plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with the rules was without justifiable reason. The Court of Appeals Decision cited Spouses Zarate v. Maybank Philippines, Inc . [38] and Eloisa Merchandising, Inc. v. Banco de Oro Universal Bank [39] on the need for vigilance in prosecuting one's case, and Regner v. Logarta [40] on the right to speedy trial. [41] In Zarate , the trial court "dismiss[ed] the complaint for lack of interest to prosecute the case." [42] Pre-trial and presentation of evidence-in-chief were reset several times due to plaintiff spouses' and/or their counsel's failure to appear, without offering any explanation for most of their absences. [43] This court sustained the trial court's dismissal of the complaint after finding that "petitioners inexorably delayed the trial of the case without any justifiable reasons[.]" [44] In Eloisa Merchandising, Inc. , the case "had been at the pre-trial stage for more than two years and petitioners have not shown special circumstances