Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 543 views

    RCBC vs. Magwin

    Uploaded by

    Theodore0176
    The trial court dismissed RCBC's case against Magwin Marketing Corporation without prejudice for failure to prosecute. RCBC filed motions to reconsider and to set a pre-trial conference. The trial court denied these motions and refused to proceed further unless the parties submitted a compromise agreement. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court cannot coerce parties to compromise and cannot penalize them for failing to do so by refusing to hold a pre-trial conference. Dismissal for failure to prosecute is only justified if a party shows want of assiduousness in acting on their complaint, and lesser sanctions should be considered first.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    RCBC vs. Magwin

    Uploaded by

    Theodore0176
    543 views2 pages
    The trial court dismissed RCBC's case against Magwin Marketing Corporation without prejudice for failure to prosecute. RCBC filed motions to reconsider and to set a pre-trial conference. The trial court denied these motions and refused to proceed further unless the parties submitted a compromise agreement. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court cannot coerce parties to compromise and cannot penalize them for failing to do so by refusing to hold a pre-trial conference. Dismissal for failure to prosecute is only justified if a party shows want of assiduousness in acting on their complaint, and lesser sanctions should be considered first.

    Original Description:

    RCBC vs. Magwin

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The trial court dismissed RCBC's case against Magwin Marketing Corporation without prejudice for failure to prosecute. RCBC filed motions to reconsider and to set a pre-trial conference. The trial court denied these motions and refused to proceed further unless the parties submitted a compromise agreement. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court cannot coerce parties to compromise and cannot penalize them for failing to do so by refusing to hold a pre-trial conference. Dismissal for failure to prosecute is only justified if a party shows want of assiduousness in acting on their complaint, and lesser sanctions should be considered first.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    543 views2 pages

    RCBC vs. Magwin

    Uploaded by

    Theodore0176
    The trial court dismissed RCBC's case against Magwin Marketing Corporation without prejudice for failure to prosecute. RCBC filed motions to reconsider and to set a pre-trial conference. The trial court denied these motions and refused to proceed further unless the parties submitted a compromise agreement. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court cannot coerce parties to compromise and cannot penalize them for failing to do so by refusing to hold a pre-trial conference. Dismissal for failure to prosecute is only justified if a party shows want of assiduousness in acting on their complaint, and lesser sanctions should be considered first.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Remedial Law 1> Rule 39 > Execution of Judgment

    RCBC VS. MAGWIN MARKETING CORPORATION


    DOCTRINE: Whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice if grievously erroneous is
    detrimental to the cause of the affected party; does not tolerate a wrongful dismissal just
    because it was without prejudice.
    FACTS: RCBC filed a complaint for recovery of sum of money with preliminary attachment
    against respondents Marwin Marketing Corporation. The trial court issued a writ of attachment
    and this was partially satisfied since only a parcel of land purportedly owned by defendant
    Benito Sy was attached. Petitioner moved for an alias writ of attachment but the trial court
    denied it. No pre-trial was set by the petitioner. Thereafter, discussions between the petitioner
    and respondents were undertaken to restructure the indebtedness of respondents.
    Subsequently a debt payment scheme was approved by the petitioner. However, the trial court,
    on its own initiative issued an Order dismissing the case without prejudice for failure of the
    petitioner to prosecute its action for unreasonable length of time. Petitioner moved for
    reconsideration of the said order by informing the trial court of respondents desire to settle
    amicably through a loan restructuring program. As a result, the trial court reconsidered
    petitioners contention and issued another Order which directed the parties to submit within 15
    days a compromise agreement otherwise shall cause the imposition of payment of the required
    docket fees for re-filing the said case. Petitioner filed a Manifestation and Motion to Set Case for
    Pre-Trial Conference and this was followed by another Supplemental Motion to Plaintiffs
    Manifestation and Motion to Set Case for Pre-Trial Conference. However, in an undated Order,
    the trial court denied petitioners motions. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal from the said orders
    but the appellate court rejected the said appeal on the ground that the said orders are mere
    interlocutory orders, hence, no appeal may be taken. Hence, this petition via Rule 65.
    ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court can coerce the parties to execute a compromise
    agreement and penalize their failure to do so by refusing to go forward with the pre-trial
    conference.
    RULING: NO. There is no substantial policy worth pursuing by requiring petitioner to pay again
    the docket fees when it has already discharged this obligation simultaneously with the filing of
    the complaint for collection of a sum of money. The procedure for dismissed cases when re-filed
    is the same as though it was initially lodged, except for the rigmarole of raffling cases which is
    dispensed with since the re-filed complaint is automatically assigned to the branch to which the
    original case pertained.
    It must be emphasized however that once the dismissal attains the attribute of finality, the trial
    court cannot impose legal fees anew because a final and executory dismissal although without
    prejudice divests the trial court of jurisdiction over the civil case as well as any residual power to
    order anything relative to the dismissed case; it would have to wait until the complaint is
    docketed once again. On the other hand, if we are to concede that the trial court retains
    jurisdiction over the case for it to issue the assailed Orders, a continuation of the hearing
    thereon would not trigger a disbursement for docket fees on the part of petitioner as this would
    obviously imply the setting aside of the order of dismissal and the reinstatement of the
    complaint.
    Our ruling in Goldloop Properties, Inc., is decisive of the instant case. In Goldloop Properties,
    Inc., we reversed the action of the trial court in dismissing the complaint for failure of the plaintiff
    to prosecute its case, which was in turn based on its inability to forge a compromise with the
    other parties within fifteen (15) days from notice of the order to do so and held -
    Since there is nothing in the Rules that imposes the sanction of dismissal for
    failing to submit a compromise agreement, then it is obvious that the dismissal
    of the complaint on the basis thereof amounts no less to a gross procedural
    infirmity assailable by certiorari. For such submission could at most be directory
    and could not result in throwing out the case for failure to effect a compromise.
    While a compromise is encouraged, very strongly in fact, failure to consummate
    one does not warrant any procedural sanction, much less an authority to jettison
    a civil complaint worth P4,000,000.00 x x x Plainly, submission of a compromise
    agreement is never mandatory, nor is it required by any rule.
    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 partys 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.

    You might also like