TABUADA V. RUIZ (SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS)

While a compromise agreement or an amicable settlement is very strongly encouraged, the failure to consummate one does not warrant any procedural sanction, much less provide an authority for the court to jettison the case. Spec Pro No. 5198 should not have been terminated or dismissed by the trial court on account of the mere failure of the parties to submit the promised amicable settlement and/or the Motion for Judgment Based on an Amicable Settlement. given the non-contentious nature of special proceedings, which do not depend on the will of an actor, but on a state or condition of things or persons not entirely within the control of the parties interested, its dismissal should be ordered only in the extreme case where the termination of the proceedings is the some remedy consistent with equity and justice, but not as a penalty for neglect of the parties therein.

The third clause of Section 3, Rule 17, which authorizes the motu proprio dismissal of a case if the plaintiff fails to comply with the rules or any order of the court, cannot even be used to justify the convenient, though erroneous, termination of the proceedings therein. An examination of the 6 December 2004 Order readily reveals that the trial court neither required the submission of the amicable settlement or the aforesaid Motion for Judgment, nor warned the parties that should they fail to submit the compromise within the given period, their case would be dismissed. Hence, it cannot be categorized as an order requiring compliance to the extent that its defiance becomes an affront to the court and the rules. and even if it were worded in coercive language, the parties cannot be forced to comply, for, as aforesaid, they are only strongly encouraged, but are not obligated, to consummate a compromise. an order requiring submission of an amicable settlement does not find support in our jurisprudence and is premised on an erroneous interpretation and application of the law and rules.

Lastly, the Court notes that inconsiderate dismissals neither constitute a panacea nor a solution to the congestion of court dockets. While they lend a deceptive aura of efficiency to records of individual judges, they merely postpone the ultimate reckoning between the parties. In the absence of clear lack of merit or intention to delay, justice is better served by a brief continuance, trial on the merits, and final disposition of the cases before the court.