Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CONRADO CALALANG v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR Nos. 203054-55 2015-07-29	CIR v. CTA PERALTA, J.
In Calalang v. Court of Appeals,[13] we held that unless a party’s conduct is so negligent, irresponsible, contumacious, or dilatory as to provide substantial grounds for dismissal for non-appearance, the courts should consider lesser sanctions which would still amount into achieving the desired end. We apply the same criteria on a defendant who fails to appear at a pre-trial conference.
	GR No. 199501 2013-03-06	REPUBLIC v. VS.HEIRS OF ENRIQUE ORIBELLO CARPIO, J.
Based on the records, petitioner has presented testimonial evidence on various hearing dates and marked numerous documents during the trial of Civil Case No. 225-0-92. Such acts do not manifest lack of interest to prosecute. Admittedly there was delay in this case. However, such delay is not the delay warranting dismissal of the complaint. To be a sufficient ground for dismissal, delay must not only be lengthy but also unnecessary resulting in the trifling of court processes.[19] There is no proof that petitioner intended to delay the proceedings in this case, much less abuse judicial processes.
	GR No. 175862 2010-10-13	REAL BANK v. SAMSUNG MABUHAY CORPORATION PEREZ, J.
In Calalang v. Court of Appeals,[33] this Court underscored that unless a party's conduct is so negligent, irresponsible, contumacious or dilatory as to provide substantial grounds for dismissal for non-appearance, the court should consider lesser sanctions which would still amount into achieving the desired end.
	GR No. 151215 2010-04-05	PCI LEASING v. ANTONIO C. MILAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
On this score, Calalang v. Court of Appeals[72] underscores that "[u]nless a party's conduct is so negligent, irresponsible, contumacious, or dilatory as to provide substantial grounds for dismissal for non-appearance, the courts should consider lesser sanctions which would still amount into achieving the desired end."
	GR No. 176706 2008-10-08	MANIGO K. RAMOS v. SPS. PURITA G. ALVENDIA AND OSCAR ALVENDIA AND SPS. JOSE AND ARACELI SEVERINO CARPIO MORALES, J.
And there is authority that an order dismissing a plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for failure of his counsel to appear at a pre-trial conference must be reversed as too severe a sanction to visit on a litigant where the record is devoid of evidence reflecting the litigant's willful or flagrant disregard for the Court's authority.[26] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 156606 2007-08-17	REPUBLIC v. ILDEFONSO T. OLETA CARPIO, J.
Moreover, in Calalang v. Court of Appeals,[19] the Court ruled that "unless a party's conduct is so negligent, irresponsible, contumacious, or dilatory as to provide substantial grounds for dismissal for non-appearance, the courts should consider lesser sanctions which would still amount into achieving the desired end." In this case, there is also no showing that petitioner willfully and flagrantly disregarded the trial court's authority. There is also no indication that petitioner had manifested lack of interest to prosecute or acted deliberately with the intention to delay the proceedings. Therefore, the trial court acted accordingly when it set aside the order of dismissal and ordered the reinstatement of petitioner's complaint.
	GR No. 152878 2003-05-05	RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. MAGWIN MARKETING CORPORATION BELLOSILLO, J.
Admittedly, delay took place in this case but it was not an interruption that should have entailed the dismissal of the complaint even if such was designated as without prejudice. To constitute a sufficient ground for dismissal, the inattention of plaintiff to pursue his cause must not only be prolonged but also be unnecessary and dilatory resulting in the trifling of judicial processes. In the instant case, the adjournment was not only fleeting as it lasted less than six (6) months but was also done in good faith to accommodate respondents' incessant pleas to negotiate. Although the dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the court, that judgment however must not be abused. The availability of this recourse must be determined according to the procedural history of each case, the situation at the time of the dismissal, and the diligence of plaintiff to proceed therein.[35] Stress must also be laid upon the official directive that courts must endeavor to convince parties in a civil case to consummate a fair settlement,[36] and to mitigate damages to be paid by the losing party who has shown a sincere desire for such give-and-take.[37] All things considered, we see no compelling circumstances to uphold the dismissal of petitioner's complaint regardless of its characterization as being without prejudice.