THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. PHILIPPINE RECORDING SYSTEM, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for failure of its witnesses
to appear when the case was called for trial.

On November 13, 1954, the plaintiff-appellant filed against the
defendants-appellees a complaint for recovery of money. After answer
and joinder of issues, the court below, on August 27, 1956, issued a
notice setting the trial for August 27, 1956. On the latter date, the
witnesses for the plaintiff were not present at 8:00 o’clock in the
morning; and when they still failed to show up within the extension
requested by plaintiff’s counsel, the court issued the following order
of dismissal, now the subject of plaintiffs appeal:

“When the case was called at eight o’clock this
morning, the attorney for the plaintiff asked for ten minutes to give
him time to present his witnesses who were not then present. The case
was again called for hearing after the lapse of ten minutes, at 8:13
a.m., and still the witnesses for the plaintiff have not appeared. This
Court cannot sanction this indolence on the part of government
witnesses. They should be more prompt in their duties, than of private
persons or private companies.

“In view of the foregoing, the Court hereby dismisses this case, without pronouncement as to costs.”

Once more we are confronted with a question which could have been
avoided had the trial judge been more human and tolerant. As the
records show, barely two minutes had passed after the entry of the
order of dismissal when plaintiff’s witnesses arrived in court. There
was a display on the part of the court of incorrect use of discretion.
It was impatience personified.

The affidavit executed by witness Villanos explained the cause of
his tardiness, which was neither intentional and deliberate nor
calculated to have the court wait. Plaintiff’s witnesses could not
accordingly be considered indolent in the performance of their duty. It
is a daily occurrence in Manila for traffic to be at its heaviest
between 7:30 and 8:00 o’clock in the morning; and though strictly this
may not be an acceptable excuse, the fact remains that said witnesses
had to pass by the Philippine National Bank to get the needed
documentary evidence and were late by only some twelve minutes.

We have always counseled judges to be more reasonable in the
exercise of their discretion in dismissing cases due to tardiness of
party litigants, their witnesses or attorneys. In Agustin Gil vs. Rose S. Talaña, et al., 95 Phil., 78, We said:

“In view of the fact that the plaintiff and his
counsel were only about fifteen minutes late in arriving at the court,
we believe that it constituted an abuse of discretion of the trial
court to dismiss the case definitely. Sometimes a delay of a few
minutes is unavoidable in trips such as that taken by the plaintiff in
going to the court and it would be too drastic to make him suffer for
such short tardiness.”

Furthermore, there was no reason for the excessive haste shown by the judge a quo,
since no other case had been calendared for the same day. And a perusal
of the records reveal that plaintiff’s claim is meritorious and the
appellees are deemed to have admitted the genuineness and due execution
of the letter of credit, draft and trust receipt in question. The
amount claimed is substantial and should have deserved serious
consideration by the trial court.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby set aside and the case
remanded to the trial court for further proceeding. So ordered without
pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.