This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-08-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| While a court can dismiss a case on the ground of non prosequitur, the real test 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 a 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, x x x courts should decide to dispense rather than wield their authority to dismiss.[29] | |||||
|
2008-06-26 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Further, in Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals, [5] we cautioned the courts against the improvident dismissal of cases for failure to prosecute, thus: xxx. In Marahay v. Melicor, we said - | |||||
|
2003-05-05 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| In fine, petitioner cannot be said to have lost interest in fighting the civil case to the end. A court may dismiss a case on the ground of non prosequitur but the real test of the judicious exercise of such power is whether under the circumstances plaintiff is chargeable with want of fitting assiduousness in not acting on his complaint with reasonable promptitude. Unless a party's conduct is so indifferent, irresponsible, contumacious or slothful as to provide substantial grounds for dismissal, i.e., equivalent to default or non-appearance in the case, the courts should consider lesser sanctions which would still amount to achieving the desired end.[38] In the absence of a pattern or scheme to delay the disposition of the case or of 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 rather than wield their authority to dismiss.[39] | |||||