G.R. No. 125468 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, NEW COTTON (PHIL.) CORP., LAN SHING CHIN, SHIN MAY WAN AND NELSON KHO.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED . The appealed order of the Regional Trial Court is hereby AFFIRMED en toto . Costs against appellant. [6] Hence, this instant petition in which petitioner avers that, THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE LOWER COURT COMMITTED AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DISMISSING THE CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACTION MAY BE DISMISSED, THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE DISMISSAL SHOULD BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FILING OF ANOTHER ACTION. [7] The trial court in dismissing the complaint, and the appellate court in affirming the trial court, applied Section 3, of Rule 17 of the Rules of Court. Section 3 states: Sec. 3. Failure to prosecute. - If plaintiff fails to appear at the time of the trial, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these rules or any order of the court, the action may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise provided by the court. Undoubtedly, in the present case, five years have been an unreasonably long time for a defendant to wait for the outcome of a trial which has yet to commence and on which his family, fortune and future depend. In a number of previous cases, we have consistently warned that courts must ensure that litigations are prosecuted and resolved with dispatch. We also held that although the grant or denial of postponements rests entirely on the sound discretion of the judge, we cautioned that the exercise of that discretion must be reasonably and wisely exercised. Postponements should not be allowed except on meritorious grounds, in light of the attendant circumstances. Deferment of the proceedings may be allowed or tolerated especially where the deferment would cause no substantial prejudice to any party. "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 the plaintiff's being non-suited or of the defendant's being pronounced liable under an ex-parte judgment." [8] 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. [9] Recall that here the complaint was filed on December 9, 1988. In two years and four months, the court issued a writ of attachment, upon application of petitioner, recalled the writ, then, only on April 27, 1990, when petitioner moved for reinstatement of the writ, did the court observe that there were no returns of the service of summonses to three other defendants. Without any manifestation from either parties, nor any application for service of summonses by publication, the trial court appropriately ruled to defer deliberations on the moti