This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-03-20 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of its cause.[26] "Adventitious resort to technicality resulting in the dismissal of cases is disfavored because litigations must as much as possible be decided on the merits and not on technicalities."[27] Inconsiderate dismissals, even if without prejudice to its refiling as in this case, merely postpone the ultimate reckoning between the parties. In the absence of a clear intention to delay, justice is better served by a brief continuance, trial on the merits, and final disposition of the case before the court.[28] | |||||
|
2008-11-14 |
VELASCO JR., 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, as in the case at bar, courts should decide to dispense rather than wield their authority to dismiss.[4] | |||||