G. R. No. L-8894. May 31, 1957

The plaintiff is the lessee of a house owned by the defendant located at 1085  Bilibid Viejo, Quiapo, Manila.  On 8 September 1954  the  plaintiff  brought an action in the Court of First  Instance  of Manila to recover from the defendant the sum of P10,000 representing expenses claimed to have been incurred in the repair of  the house leased by her; to annul a second  mortgage on real estate executed by her in favor  of the defendant,  the same having  been executed through undue influence; to collect from the defendant  moral and exemplary damages  resulting from “moral anguish, mental  torture, and social and professional embarassment suffered” by her due to the filing, by the, defendant against her of  a complaint for detainer; to secure a reduction in the  monthly rental of  the house leased by her from the  defendant from P300  to P200; and to obtain such  other remedies as justice, law and equity warrant.

On 17 September 1954 the defendant filed a motion praying that the plaintiff be directed to amend her complaint or to submit a bill of particulars specifying with definiteness  whether  the alleged  contract of lease is verbal or written and its  precise terms and conditions regarding repairs and  the dates when the alleged repairs were made and the cost of each; to furnish the defendant with a copy of the alleged instrument  of second mortgage executed by lier in his favor; and to specify the nature and amount of damages sought to   be  recovered by her.  On 8 October 1954  the plaintiff  filed  an opposition to the motion. The Court set the hearing of the  motion for 9 October 1954.  On 26 October  1954, acting  upon the  defendant’s motion and the  plaintiff’s objection  thereto, the, Court granted the  motion and ordered the  plaintiff to “file third amended pleading or a.bill of particulars  within ten  (10) days from the receipt of a copy of this order.”  Motion for reconsideration filed  on 4 November  1954 was denied by  the Court on 11 November 1954.

On 17 November 1954  the plaintiff filed a motion praying that she “be allowed an  extension of two  weeks from date of this motion to file the required bill of particulars.” On  23 November 1954 the Court granted the motion.   The plaintiff, however,  failed to  file the required  bill  of  particulars within the time prayed for by her and granted by the Court.

On 3 December 1954 the defendant moved  for the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint for her failure  to  prosecute her action,  she having failed to  comply with the order of the  Court of  26  October 1954, in accordance with section  3, Rule  30.  On  13 December  1954 the Court granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. Motion for reconsideration filed on 5 January  1955 was denied by the Court  on  10  January 1955.  The plaintiff has  appealed.

Section 3, Rule  30,  provides that—

When plaintiff fails to appear at the time  of the  trial, or  to prosecute  his  action  for  an unreasonable length  of time,  or  to comply with these rules or any order of the court, the action may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the  court’s own ‘notion.  This  dismissal shall  have  the effect  of  an adjudication upon  the  merits,  unless otherwise provided  by court.  (Italics supplied.)

After  the Court had  ordered the  appellant  either  to amend her complaint  or  to file a bill of particulars within ten days from receipt of notice, on 17 November 1955 she moved that  she be granted two weeks from that date  to file a bill of particulars.  This the Court granted.  But she failed to file the bill  of particulars within that period. If she thought that she could not file it on time, she should have seasonably explained to  the  Court the  reason  why she could not do so and prayed that she be granted another extension of time within which to comply with the  order of the Court, as she previously had done.  Said this Court in Smith Bell & Co., Ltd. vs. American President Lines Ltd., (99 Phil., 879)—

*  *  * The dismissal of action pursuant to this rule rest upon the sound discretion of the court and will not reversed on appeal in the abscence of abuse.  The burden of showing abuse of judicial discretion is upon appellant since every presumption is in favor of the correctness of the court’s action.

Section 3, Rule 16, providing that —

If an order of the court to make more definite and certain or for a bill of particulars is not obeyed within ten (10) days after notice of the order or within such other time as the court may fix, the court may strike out the on the pleading to which the motion was directed or make such other order as it deems just. (Italics supplied)

is not in conflict with the provision of Section 3, Rule 30.  On the contrary, it strenghtens the authority of the Court to dismiss of the appellant’s complain.

AS the appellant claims in her complaint that she made numerous repairs on the houseleased by her from the defendant during a period for twenty years and that she suffered damage due to the filing by the defendant of a complaint for detainer against her, the appelle is intitled to know with certainty the date, nature, extent of each repair the appellant made and the nature and amount of damage she seeks to recover to enable him to prepare his defense.  The appelle should be informed as to when the expensesb for repairs incurred to determine whether the action was brought within the statutory period.

The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ.,  concur.