Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila
Special Sixteenth (16th) Division
REYNALDO T. LACABA, CA-G.R. SP No. 157214
Petitioner,

Members:
-versus-
LANTION, J.A.C.,
Chairperson
NEMESIO S. ARTAIZ, DIY, M.E.S., and,
Respondent.
*
JACOB, M.C.A, JJ

Promulgated:

FEBRUARY 26, 2019

DECISION

LANTION, J.A.C., J.:

This Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court

seeks to annul and set aside the Decision dated 18 July 2018 of the
Professional Regulation Commission in Appeal Case No. A-437. The
decretal portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Order of the Board of Medicine dated

9 March 2012 dismissing the case for failure to prosecute, and
reiterated in its 12 April 2012 Order dismissing complaint-
appellant's Motion for Reconsideration, is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.”

THE FACTS
(As culled from the Records)

The instant case stemmed from a Complaint filed by Petitioner

*
Per Office Order No. 51-19-RFB, effective 15 February 2019 until 8 March 2019.
CA-G.R. SP No. 157214 Page 2 of 7
Decision

Reynaldo T. Lacaba (Lacaba) against Respondent Dr. Nemesio S.

Artaiz (Dr. Artaiz) before the Professional Regulatory Board of
Medicine in Administrative Case No. 2207. Lacaba imputed gross
negligence and dishonorable conduct against Dr. Artaiz for allegedly
prescribing ineffective medications and performing adverse eye
procedures on him.

During the Pre-trial of the case on 26 February 2009, Lacaba

attended without his lawyer. There being no counsel to represent
him, the pre-trial was suspended and reset to 25 May 2009. On said
subsequent date, Lacaba however attended without his counsel
again. Thus, the hearing was once more postponed.

During the Pre-trial on 21 July 2009, both Lacaba and his

counsel were absent, prompting Dr. Artaiz to move for the dismissal
of the case on the ground of failure to prosecute.

The Professional Regulatory Board of Medicine granted Dr.

Artaiz' Motion in its Order dated 20 August 2009. Lacaba filed a
Motion for Reconsideration of the said Order, alleging that his previous
counsel failed to inform him of the Pre-trial date. The Board granted
Lacaba's Motion for Reconsideration and set anew another Pre-trial
Conference.

On 18 January 2010, the parties proceeded with the stipulation

of facts, determination of the issues and marking of exhibits.

During the next hearing on 8 April 2010, Lacaba attended

without his counsel again. As such, Dr. Artaiz once more moved for
the dismissal of the case on the ground of failure to prosecute.
Lacaba, through his new counsel, filed a Comment to the Motion
praying that the case be set for another hearing. In the interest of
justice, the Board resolved the Motion in favor of Lacaba, setting the
case for another Pre-trial Conference.

During the hearing on 20 May 2010, a paralegal of Lacaba's

counsel appeared and signified the lawyer's intention to formally
withdraw appearance. Being the complainant who instituted the
CA-G.R. SP No. 157214 Page 3 of 7
Decision

case, Lacaba was warned for repetitively appearing without his

counsel and was given a period to secure the services of a new one.

During the next scheduled hearing, Lacaba once more appeared

without a lawyer. In furtherance of justice, the Board reset the
hearing to another date.

On 12 July 2011, a Pre-Trial Order was issued by the Board.

On 8 September 2011, during the scheduled initial presentation

of evidence for the complainant, the new counsel for Lacaba moved
for the resetting of the case, which the Board granted.

On the next hearing day, Lacaba's counsel, however, did not

appear again. As such, Dr. Arnaiz moved to have the case dismissed
with prejudice.

On 9 March 2012, the Board issued an Order dismissing the case

with prejudice on the ground of failure to prosecute. Lacaba filed a
Motion for Reconsideration of the said Order, but the same was denied
on 30 July 2012.

Aggrieved, Lacaba appealed the dismissal of his case before the

Philippine Regulation Commission. However, the Commission
affirmed the Board's Order and dismissed Lacaba's Complaint in its
assailed Decision dated 18 July 2018.

Hence, the instant Petition.

ISSUE

WHETHER THE COMMISSION GRAVELY ERRED IN

AFFIRMING THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE BY THE
BOARD FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE.
CA-G.R. SP No. 157214 Page 4 of 7
Decision

RULING

Lacaba imputes error on the part of the Philippine Regulation

Commission in affirming the Professional Regulatory Board's Order
which dismissed his Complaint on the ground of failure to prosecute.
He argues that he cannot be considered to have failed to prosecute
his case since he was always present during the scheduled hearings
and it was only his counsel who was absent. In view thereof, Lacaba
contends that the Board should have set aside technical rules of
procedure and allowed him to present his case.

The Petition is without merit.

Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If, for no

justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to x x x prosecute his action
for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these
Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed
upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion x
x x. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon
the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court. (Emphasis
Ours)

There is failure to prosecute when, under the prevailing

circumstances, the complainant, such as Lacaba, lacks due diligence
to proceed with the case with reasonable promptitude. As to what
constitutes "unreasonable length of time," this Court has ruled that it
depends on the circumstances of each particular case and that "the
sound discretion of the court" in the determination of the said
question will not be disturbed, in the absence of patent abuse.1

It is true that the full presentation of a complainant's case

should be favored over termination of the proceedings on technical
grounds. Ideally, technicalities should not be permitted to stand in
the way of equity to resolve the rights and obligations of the parties. 2
1
ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION vs. SPOUSES RODOLFO and GLORIA MADRIAGA, G.R. No.
196670. October 12, 2016.
2
NG CHING TING vs. PHILIPPINE BUSINESS BANK, INC., G.R. No. 224972. July 9, 2018.
CA-G.R. SP No. 157214 Page 5 of 7
Decision

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.3

In this case, the Professional Regulatory Board of Medicine

exercised utmost leniency in postponing the hearings of the case to
give Lacaba the chance to present his case. As records show, the
Board suspended the proceedings for eight (8) times as Lacaba
always appeared without a counsel. The ruling of the Supreme Court
in the case of Ng Ching Ting vs. Philippine Business Bank, Inc.4 is
instructive, viz:

“x x x the respondent cannot simply lay the blame on x x x its

counsels since it is incumbent upon it, as the complainant, to
promptly hire new lawyers to represent it in the proceedings.
Much vigilance and diligence are expected of it considering
that it is the one who initiated the action. x x x it should have
taken immediate steps to hire replacements so it may be able to
keep up with the pending incidents in the case. Surely, it cannot
expect the court to wait until it has settled its predicament. It
must take prompt action to keep pace with the proceedings. As
it was, however, the respondent dilly-dallied for almost a year
until the court, motu proprio, ordered the dismissal of the case for
failure to prosecute.”

Here, the case dragged at the pre-trial stage for more than two
(2) years, from 2009 until 2011. Despite the Board's leniency and
admonition to secure a lawyer during the proceedings, Lacaba still
failed to comply. Conformably with Ng Ching Ting, supra, Lacaba
clearly cannot lay the blame on his lawyers to excuse himself for
being held culpable of failure to prosecute.

Significantly, this Court also emphasizes that litigants bear the

responsibility to monitor the status of their cases and keep
communication with their counsels. Clients have the duty to be in
contact with their lawyers from time to time in order to be informed
of the progress and developments of their cases and manage the case
together.5 Here, had Lacaba discharged what was incumbent upon
3
Id.
4
G.R. No. 224972. July 9, 2018.
5
See PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARTHUR PARCON y ESPINOSA, G.R. No. 219592. August 17,
2016.
CA-G.R. SP No. 157214 Page 6 of 7
Decision

him as the complainant at bar, the numerous postponements and

vexatious (2) years delay in the proceedings would have been
avoided. Obviously, Lacaba and his counsels poorly managed the
prosecution of the instant case. In view of the oppressive and
capricious two (2) years delay in the proceedings and the oppression
caused thereby to Dr. Artaiz who was always present with his
counsel during the hearings, We agree with the Professional
Regulation Commission that Lacaba is culpable of failure to
prosecute his case.

All told, We find that the Professional Regulation Commission

did not err in rendering the assailed Decision affirming the dismissal
of Lacaba's Complaint.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DISMISSED. The assailed

Decision dated 18 July 2018 of the Professional Regulation
Commission in Appeal Case No. A-437 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

JANE AURORA C. LANTION

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MARIA ELISA SEMPIO DIY

Associate Justice

MARIE CHRISTINE AZCARRAGA JACOB

Associate Justice
CA-G.R. SP No. 157214 Page 7 of 7
Decision

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the court.

JANE AURORA C. LANTION

Associate Justice
Chairperson, Special Sixteenth Division