MARIA MATIAS DE BAUTISTA, assisted by her husband LORENZO BAUTISTA, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.
JOSE TEODORO, JR., defendant-appellee.

FACTS: Plaintiff brought an action in the CFI of Manila to recover from 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 and to collect damages.

Defendant filed a motion praying that plaintiff be directed to amend her complaint or submit a bill of
particulars specifying with definiteness whether the alleged contract of lease is verbal or written and its precise
term and conditions regarding repairs and the dates when the repairs were made and the cost of each; to
furnish defendant a copy of the alleged second mortgage; and to specify the nature and amount of damages
sought to be recovered by her. Plaintiff filed opposition to the motion.

Court granted the motion and ordered plaintiff to file an amended pleading or a bill of particulars within 10
days from receipt of the order. Plaintiff filed a motion praying that she be allowed an extension of two weeks
to file the bill of particulars. Court granted the motion. The plaintiff, however, failed to file the required bill
within the time prayed for by her. Defendant moved for dismissal of plaintiffs complaint for her failure to
prosecute her action. Court granted the motion and dismissed plaintiffs complaint. Plaintiffs motion for
reconsideration was denied. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: W/N the dismissal of plaintiffs complaint is proper

HELD: Yes. Section 3, Rule 16 provides 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 pleading to which the motion was directed or make such other
order as it deems just.

After the Court had ordered the appellant to amend her complaint or to file a bill of particulars within ten
days from receipt of notice, 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 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.

The dismissal of an action pursuant to this rule rest upon the sound discretion of the court and will not be
reversed on appeal in the absence 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.

In this case, the appellee is entitled to know with certainty the date, nature, extent and cost of each repair that
the appellant made and the nature and amount of damage she seeks to recover to enable him to prepare his
defense. The appellee should be informed as to when the expenses for repairs were incurred to determine
whether the action was brought within the statutory period.