Bank of the Philippine Islands v SPS GENUINO

Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) filed a Complaint for Sum of Money/Judgment on the Deficiency against the Spouses enuino !efore the "egional #rial Court of Makati $hen Sps enuino defaulted in the installment payments of their loans and credit accommodations% &n Decem!er ' '* BPI recei+ed a copy of the ,ns$er and opted not to file any "eply% #he "egional #rial Court in its &rder  dated May -. '- dismissed the case $ithout preudice for  lack of interest to prosecute under "ule -. Section 0 of the "ules of Court% BPI e1plained that the case folder $as misplaced in the office bodega together $ith the records of terminated cases% #he assigned secretary of counsel had already left the firm and the !ank could no longer seek an e1planation for the misfiling of the case after it had !een unloaded !y pre+ious counsel% #he !ank argued for the application of ,%M% 2o% 03-3*3SC and su!mits that $ith the issuance of  ,%M% 2o% 03-3*3 03-3*3SC SC 4 it is no longer proper to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute starting August 16, 2004 due to the non-filing by the plaintiff of a Motion to Set Case for re !rial Conference !ut instead the Clerk of Court should issue an &rder setting the case for Pre #rial Conference%4 It 5uotes Espiritu, et al. v. Lazaro, et al. that clarified the application of ,%M% 2o% 03-3*3SC to cases filed after its effecti+ity on ,ugust -6 '7% #he Spouses enuino on the other hand su!mit that 4not$ithstanding ,%M% 2o% 03-3*3SC it is the duty of the plaintiff to prosecute its action $ithin a reasona!le length of time and the failure to do so $ould ustify the dismissal of the case%4 ISS89: ;&2 the trial court acted $ith gra+e a!use of discretion in dismissing the case $ithout preudice on the ground of failure to prosecute $hen BPI failed to file a motion to set case for pre3 trial conference% "8) days from date of filing of the reply the plaintiff must promptly mo+e e1 parte that the case !e set for pre3trial conference% If the plaintiff fails to file said motion within the given period, the Branch COC shall issue a notice of pre-trial. 2e+ertheless no$here in the te1t of ,%M% 2o% 03-3*3SC does it remo+e the plaintiff?s duty under "ule -= Section - of the "ules of Court to set the case for pre3trial after the last pleading has !een ser+ed and filed% 2o$here does it repeal "ule -. Section 0 of the "ules of Court that allo$s dismissals due to plaintiff?s fault including plaintiff?s failure to comply $ith the "ules for no  ustifia!le  ustifia! le cause% 2o$here does it impose impose a sole sole !urden !urden on the trial court court to set the the case for pre3 trial% Despite this the court has allo$ed cases to proceed despite failure !y the plaintiff to promptly mo+e for pre3trial $hen it finds that 4the e1treme sanction of dismissal of the complaint might not !e $arranted if no substantial prejudice would be caused to the defendant, and there are special and compelling reasons which would make the strict application of the rule clearly unjustified % &n the other hand this court has sustained dismissals due to plaintiff?s fault after finding that plaintiff?s failure to prosecute or comply $ith the rules $as $ithout ustifia!le reason% BPI? e1planation of misfiling !y pre+ious counsel?s secretary of the case records together $ith terminated cases in the office bodega cannot !e considered as ustifia!le cause for its failure to set the case for pre3trial% #his court has held that 4a counsel is re5uired to in5uire from time to time and $hene+er necessary a!out the status of handled cases as $ell as motions filed for a client%4  ,lso BPI BPI is one of the oldest oldest and more esta!lished esta!lished !anks in the country country%% #here #here is reasona reasona!le !le

e1pectation that it has the necessary organi@ational structures system flo$s and procedures to address urgent matters and meet litigation deadlines% #he !ank?s e1planation for its o$n negligence is una+ailing% ;hile it is true that ,%M% 2o% 03-3*3 SC does pro+ide that the Clerk of Court set the date of pre3trial plaintiff should not !e re$arded for his or her negligence%