FACTS:

The case involves a dispute over a Lease Contract. The respondent allegedly sold the leased premises to another party without offering it to the petitioner, who had the first option to buy. The petitioner filed a complaint for breach of contract, seeking damages. The trial court dismissed the complaint, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

In response to the complaint, the respondents filed an answer with compulsory counterclaims, claiming that they made several offers to sell the leased premises to the petitioner, which the petitioner declined due to the price. The petitioner filed a motion to strike out certain allegations in the answer, arguing that the respondents are bound by the findings of the Supreme Court.

The trial court denied the petitioner's motion, emphasizing the need for further proceedings to allow both parties to present evidence. The petitioner sought reconsideration of the denial and the voluntary inhibition of the presiding judge, but both motions were denied. The case was set for pre-trial, but the petitioner filed a motion to cancel pre-trial, claiming that they were preparing a petition to challenge the validity of the court's previous orders.

The petition was eventually filed, and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the petitioner, annulled the trial court's orders, and directed the lower court to give due course to the petitioner's appeal. On the day of the scheduled pre-trial, the petitioner's counsel refused to proceed, resulting in the court declaring the petitioner non-suited and dismissing the complaint.

The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the court. The petitioner also filed a notice of appeal, which was denied for being filed out of time. The petitioner then filed another petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, arguing that its motion for reconsideration tolled the period to appeal. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, annulled the orders of the trial court, and directed the lower court to give due course to the petitioner's appeal. The trial court subsequently issued an order elevating the records of the case.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the trial court had the discretion to grant or deny a motion to postpone and/or reschedule the pre-trial conference.

2. Whether the postponement of the pre-trial in this case was warranted under the circumstances.

3. Whether petitioner's refusal to proceed with the pre-trial could be justified by the filing of the petition for certiorari and prohibition.

4. Whether the trial court correctly dismissed petitioner's complaint.

RULING:

1. Yes, the trial court has the discretion to grant or deny a motion to postpone and/or reschedule the pre-trial conference. The trial court is in the best position to evaluate the circumstances of the case and determine whether a postponement is warranted or not.

2. In this case, the Court upheld the trial court's denial of the postponement of the pre-trial conference. The pattern of delaying the pre-trial was evident, and the petitioner was found to have trifled with the mandatory character of the pre-trial. The trial court correctly found that there were no meritorious grounds for the postponement and that it was a dilatory tactic by the petitioner to control the proceedings.

3. Petitioner's refusal to proceed with the pre-trial could not be justified by the filing of the petition for certiorari and prohibition. The court held that petitioner's assertion that the alleged "sham, contemptuous lies contained in respondents' Answer should be stricken off from the records" first before the pre-trial could proceed is unfounded and speculative. The court emphasized that the rules of procedure do not exist for the convenience of the litigants and must be followed to provide order and enhance the efficiency of the judicial system.

4. The trial court correctly dismissed petitioner's complaint. The court ruled that petitioner had the opportunity to present its case but chose to unduly forego it. The court held that petitioner's refusal to even start with the statement of its cause is a "clear, firm and open defiance" of the court's directive to proceed to pre-trial. Therefore, the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court was justified. The dismissal is a matter within the trial court's sound discretion, and in this case, there was no justifiable reason to the contrary.

PRINCIPLES:

• The trial court has the discretion to grant or deny a motion to postpone or reschedule the pre-trial conference based on the circumstances of the case.

• Postponements should only be granted for clearly meritorious grounds and in light of the attendant circumstances.

• A pre-trial conference is a mandatory procedural device intended to clarify and limit the issues raised by the parties and to expedite the disposition of the case.

• The mere elevation of an interlocutory matter through a petition for certiorari does not automatically merit a suspension of the proceedings before the trial court unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued.

• The rules of procedure are established to provide order and enhance the efficiency of the judicial system. They do not exist for the convenience of the litigants.

• The dismissal of a complaint due to the fault of the plaintiff is within the trial court's sound discretion. It may be granted if the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of evidence in chief, fails to prosecute the action for an unreasonable length of time, fails to comply with the rules or any court order, and there is no justifiable cause for such failure.

• The expeditious disposition of cases is the duty of both the court and the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot wash their hands of any responsibility for the delay in the case.