There are two ways by which an action may be dismissed upon the instance of the plaintiff. First, dismissal is a matter of right when a notice of dismissal is filed by the plaintiff before an answer or a motion for summary judgment has been served on him by the defendant. Second, dismissal is discretionary on the court when the motion for the dismissal of the action is filed by the plaintiff at any stage of the proceedings other than before service of an answer or a motion for summary judgment. While the dismissal in the first mode takes effect upon the mere notice of plaintiff without need of a judicial order, the second mode requires the authority of the court before dismissal of the case may be effected. This is so because in the dismissal of an action, the effect of the dismissal upon the rights of the defendant should always be taken into consideration.
Limaco vs. Shonan Gakuen Children's House Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 158245, June 30, 2005
Rule 17, Sec. 1 - Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff
Susie Chan-Tan vs. Jesse C. Tan, G.R. No. 167139, February 25, 2010
Ma. Carminia C. Roxas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139337, August 15, 2001
It is mandatory that the trial court issue an order confirming such dismissal (upon notice of plaintiff) and, unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without prejudice and could be accomplished by the plaintiff through mere notice of dismissal, and not through motion subject to approval by the court. Dismissal is ipso facto upon notice, and without prejudice unless otherwise stated in the notice.
Frederick Dael vs. Sps. Benedicto and Vilma Beltran, G.R. No. 156470, April 30, 2008
Rule 17, Sec. 2 - Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff
Susie Chan-Tan vs. Jesse C. Tan, G.R. No. 167139, February 25, 2010
Rule 17, Sec. 3 - Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff
Benedicta M. Samson, et al. vs. Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, et al., G.R. No. 166356, February 2, 2010 Eduardo M. Martinez vs. Judge Orlando C. Paguio, A.M. No. MTJ 02-1419, December 27, 2002 Lilia J. Vicoy vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 138203, July 3, 2002
Mariano L. Gumabon, et al. vs. Aquilino T. Larin, G.R. No. 142523, November 27, 2001
Emma Gallardo-Corro, et al. vs. Efren Don L. Gallardo, et al., G.R. No. 136228, January 30, 2001
Failure to make a substitution pursuant to Section 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court is a ground for the dismissal of an action.
Rufus B. Rodriguez, et al. vs. Samuel A. Jardin, G.R. No. 141834, July 30, 2007
Under Rule 17, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, the dismissal of a case for lack of interest to prosecute had the effect of an adjudication on the merits.
Pablo C. Olivares, et al. vs. Arsenio C. Villalon, Jr., A.C. No. 6323, April 13, 2007
The rules contemplate certain instances where the complaint may be dismissed due to the plaintiff's fault: (1) if he fails to appear during a scheduled trial, especially on the date for the presentation of his evidence in chief; (2) if he fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time; (3) if he fails to comply with the rules or any order of the court; or, (4) where the plaintiff fails to appear when so required at the pre-trial.
BPI vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117385, February 11, 1999
Dismissals of actions for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute is authorized under Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court. A plain examination of the December 16, 2003 dismissal order shows that it is an unqualified order and, as such, is deemed to be a dismissal with prejudice. "Dismissals of actions (under Section 3) which do not expressly state whether they are with or without prejudice are held to be with prejudice[.]"As a prejudicial dismissal, the December 16, 2003 dismissal order is also deemed to be a judgment on the merits so that the petitioner's complaint in Civil Case No. 02-488 can no longer be refiled on the principle of res judicata. Procedurally, when a complaint is dismissed for failure to prosecute and the dismissal is unqualified, the dismissal has the effect of an adjudication on the merits. As an adjudication on the merits, it is imperative that the dismissal order conform with Section 1, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court on the writing of valid judgments and final orders.
Shimizu Phil. Contractors, Inc. vs. Leticia B. Magsalin, et al., G.R. No. 170026, June 20, 2012
The reliance on Joaquin [Joaquin vs. Navarro, 93 Phil. 257 (1953)] is misplaced as it is based on the conclusion the appellate court made in its April 8, 2005 resolution — i.e., that the pleading of undisputed facts is equivalent to a prohibited appeal. The reliance is inattentive to both the
averments of the subject appeal and to the text of the cited case. The operative legal principle in Joaquin is this: "[W]here a case is submitted upon an agreement of facts, or where all the facts are stated in the judgment and the issue is the correctness of the conclusions drawn therefrom, the question is one of law which [is properly subject to the review of this Court.]" In this case, as already pointed out above, the facts supposedly supporting the trial court's conclusion of non prosequitur were not stated in the judgment. This defeats the application of Joaquin.
Shimizu Phil. Contractors, Inc. vs. Leticia B. Magsalin, et al., G.R. No. 170026, June 20, 2012
The grounds specified by Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court for the motu proprio dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute. . . are as follows:
(a) Failure of the plaintiff, without justifiable reasons, to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief;
(b) Failure of the plaintiff to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time; (c) Failure of the plaintiff to comply with the Rules of Court; or
(d) Failure of the plaintiff to obey any order of the court.
Shimizu Phil. Contractors, Inc. vs. Leticia B. Magsalin, et al., G.R. No. 170026, June 20, 2012
The fundamental test for non prosequitur is whether, under the circumstances, the plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude. There must be unwillingness on the part of the plaintiff to prosecute. While it is discretionary on the trial court to dismiss cases, dismissals of actions should be made with care. The repressive or restraining effect of the rule amounting to adjudication upon the merits may cut short a case even before it is fully litigated; a ruling of dismissal may forever bar a litigant from pursuing judicial relief under the same cause of action. Hence, sound discretion demands vigilance in duly recognizing the circumstances surrounding the case to the end that technicality shall not prevail over substantial justice.
Shimizu Phil. Contractors, Inc. vs. Leticia B. Magsalin, et al., G.R. No. 170026, June 20, 2012
Rule 18, Sec. 1 - When conducted
Rule 18, Sec. 2 - Nature and purpose
Toshiba Information Equipment (Phils.), Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 157594, March 9, 2010
Rule 18, Sec. 3 - Notice of pre-trial
Under the pre-1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a notice of pretrial must be served separately on the counsel and the client. If served only on the counsel, the notice must expressly direct the counsel to inform the client of the date, the time and the place of the pretrial conference. The absence of such notice renders the proceedings void, and the judgment rendered therein cannot acquire finality and may be attacked directly or collaterally.
Mariano de Guia vs. Ciriaco de Guia, G.R. No. 135384, April 4, 2001
Rule 18, Sec. 4 - Appearance of parties
Noteworthy is the fact that Section 4, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Court is a new provision; and requires nothing less than that the representative should appear in a party’s behalf fully authorized in writing to enter into an amicable settlement, to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations of facts and of documents.
United Coconut Planters Bank vs. Miguel "Mike" Magpayo, G.R. No. 149908, May 27, 2004
Under Rule 18, Section 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, it is obligatory upon both a party and her counsel to appear at a pre-trial conference. The failure of a party to appear at pre-trial, given its mandatory character, may cause her to be non-suited or considered as in default.
Nora E. Miwa vs. Rene O. Medina, A.C. No. 5854, September 30, 2003
The rules require that the party-litigant himself must appear for pre-trial but if he chooses to be represented thereat, he should grant a special power of attorney to his counsel or representative.
Rule 18, Sec. 5 - Effect of failure to appear
Indeed the dismissal of a case whether for failure to appear during trial or prosecute an action for an unreasonable length of time rests on the sound discretion of the trial court. But this discretion must not be abused, nay gravely abused, and must be exercised soundly. Deferment of proceedings may be tolerated so that cases may be adjudged only after a full and free presentation of all the evidence by both parties. The propriety of dismissing a case must be determined by the circumstances surrounding each particular case. There must be sufficient reason to justify the dismissal of a complaint.
BPI vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117385, February 11, 1999
Prior to the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the phrase "as in default" was initially included in Rule 20 of the old rules, and which read as follows:
Sec. 2. A party who fails to appear at a pre-trial conference may be non-suited
or considered as in default.
It was however amended in the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Justice Regalado, in his book REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM, explained the rationale for the deletion of the phrase "as in default" in the amended provision, to wit:
1. This is a substantial reproduction of Section 2 of the former Rule 20 with the
change that, instead of defendant being declared "as in default" by reason of his non-appearance, this section now spells out that the procedure will be to allow the ex parte presentation of plaintiff's evidence and the rendition of judgment on the basis thereof. While actually the procedure remains the same, the purpose is one of semantical propriety or terminological accuracy as there were criticisms on the use of the word "default" in the former provision since that term is identified with the failure to file a required answer, not appearance in court.
Still, in the same book, Justice Regalado clarified that while the order of default no longer obtains, its effects were retained, thus:
Failure to file a responsive pleading within the reglementary period, and not failure to appear at the hearing, is the sole ground for an order of default, except the failure to appear at a pre-trial conference wherein the effects of a default on the part of the defendant are followed, that is, the plaintiff shall be allowed to present evidence ex parte and a judgment based thereon may be rendered against defendant.
As the rule now stands, if the defendant fails to appear for pre-trial, a default order is no longer issued. Instead, the trial court may allow the plaintiff to proceed with his evidence ex parte and the court can decide the case based on the evidence presented by plaintiff.
2010
Rule 18, Sec. 6 - Pre-trial brief
The pre-trial brief serves as a guide during the pre-trial conference so as to simplify, abbreviate and expedite the trial if not to dispense with it. It is a devise essential to the speedy disposition of disputes, and parties cannot brush it aside as a mere technicality. In addition, pre-trial rules are not to be belittled or dismissed, because their non-observance may result in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they should be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thought[less]ness in not complying with the procedure.
Eufemia Balatico vda. de Agatep vs. Roberta L. Rodriguez, et al., G.R. No. 170540, October 28, 2009
Section 6, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court mandates that parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party their pre-trial briefs at least three days before the scheduled pre-trial. The Rules also provide that failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial.
Republic of the Philippines vs. Ildefonso T. Oleta, G.R. No. 156606, August 17, 2007
Under Section 6, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the failure of the defendant to file a pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial, i.e., the plaintiff may present his evidence ex parte and the court shall render judgment on the basis thereof. The remedy of the defendant is to file a motion for reconsideration showing that his failure to file a pre-trial brief was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect. The motion need not really stress the fact that the defendant has a valid and meritorious defense because his answer which contains his defenses is already on record.
Jacinto Saguid vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150611, June 10, 2003
Republic of the Phil. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003
Rule 18, Sec. 7 - Record of pre-trial
LCK Industries Inc., et al. vs. Planters Development Bank, G.R. No. 170606, November 23, 2007 Hermogenes Datuin vs. Andres B. Soriano, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1640, October 15, 2002
Rule 19 - Intervention
Rule 19 of the Rules of Court allows a person to intervene in a civil case.
Manuel H. Nieto, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 166984, August 17, 2007
To warrant intervention under Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, two requisites must concur: (1) the movant has a legal interest in the matter in litigation; and (2) intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties, nor should the claim of the intervenor be capable of being properly decided in a separate proceeding. The interest, which entitles one to intervene, must involve the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Maximo D. Sison, G.R. No. 185954, February 16, 2010
The purpose of intervention is to enable a stranger to an action to become a party in order for him to protect his interest and for the court to settle all conflicting claims. Intervention is allowed to avoid multiplicity of suits more than on due process considerations. To warrant intervention under Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, two requisites must concur: (1) the movant has a legal interest on the matter in litigation; and (2) intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties, nor should the claim of the intervenor be capable of being properly decided in a separate proceeding.
Metrobank vs. International Exchange Bank, G.R. Nos. 176008 & 176131, August 10, 2011
CSMC's intervention should be treated as one pro interesse suo which is a mode of intervention in equity wherein a stranger desires to intervene for the purpose of asserting a property right in the res, or thing, which is the subject matter of the litigation, without becoming a formal plaintiff or defendant, and without acquiring control over the course of a litigation, which is conceded to the main actors therein.
Metrobank vs. International Exchange Bank, G.R. Nos. 176008 & 176131, August 10, 2011
Rule 19, Sec. 1 - Who may intervene
The legal interest which entitles a person to intervene must be in the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by direct legal operation and effect of judgment.
Elmar O. Perez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162580, January 27, 2006
To warrant intervention under Rule 19, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, two requisites must concur: (a) the movant has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, and (b) intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties, nor should the claim of the intervenor be capable of being properly decided in a separate proceeding.
Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Danilo L. Concepcion, G.R. No. 160727, June 26, 2007
Intervention is not mandatory, but only optional and permissive. Notably, Section 2, Rule 12 of the then 1988 Revised Rules of Procedure uses the word 'may' in defining the right to intervene. The present rules maintain the permissive nature of intervention in Section 1, Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
California Bus Lines, Inc. vs. State Investment House, Inc., G.R. No. 147950, December 11, 2003
Intervention is not a matter of right but may be permitted by the courts only when the statutory conditions for the right to intervene is shown. Thus, the allowance or disallowance of a motion to intervene is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. In determining the propriety of letting a party intervene in a case, the tribunal should not limit itself to inquiring whether "a person (1) has a legal interest in the matter in litigation; (2) or in the success of either of the parties; (3) or an interest against both; (4) or when is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof."
Domingo R. Manalo vs. Court of Appeals and Paic Savings And Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. 141297, October 8, 2001
Intervention is not a matter of right but may be permitted by the Courts when the applicant shows facts which satisfy the requirements of the law authorizing intervention. Under Section 1 Rule 19 of the Revised Rules of Court, what qualifies a person to intervene is his possession of a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or when he is situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof. As regards the legal interest as qualifying factor, this Court has ruled that such interest must be of direct and immediate character not merely contingent or expectant so that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation of the judgment.
Firestone Ceramics vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 127022 & 127245, September 2, 1999
Fort Bonifacio Development Corp. vs. Yllas Lending Corp., et al., G.R. No. 158997, October 6, 2008 GSIS vs. Mariano A. Nocom, G.R. No. 175989, February 4, 2008
[A] motion for intervention shall be entertained when the following requisites are satisfied: (1) the would-be intervenor shows that he has a substantial right or interest in the case; and (2) such right or interest cannot be adequately pursued and protected in another proceeding.
Eleazar P. Quinto, et al. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189698, February 22, 2010
Rule 19, Sec. 2 - Time to intervene
This section is derived from the former Section 2, Rule 12, which then provided that the motion to intervene may be filed "before or during a trial." Said former phraseology gave rise to ambiguous doctrines on the interpretation of the word "trial," with one decision holding that said Motion may be filed up to the day the case is submitted for decision, while another stating that it may be filed at any time before the rendition of the final judgment. This ambiguity was eliminated by the present Section 2, Rule 19 by clearly stating that the same may be filed "at any time before rendition of the