This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-07-22 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| 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] | |||||
|
2015-07-22 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| 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 or compelling reasons to convince [this court] that the dismissal of their complaint for failure to prosecute was unjustified."[45] The case remained at pre-trial stage when A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC took effect.[46] The trial court already dismissed the complaint twice due to petitioners' non-appearance at pre-trial.[47] This court sustained the third dismissal since "despite the trial court's leniency and admonition, petitioners continued to exhibit laxity and inattention in attending to their case."[48] | |||||