GR L 42335; (September, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-42335 September 9, 1982
Pedro Amigable, petitioner, vs. The Court of Appeals and The People of the Philippines, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Pedro Amigable was convicted by the Municipal Court of Tulunan, Cotabato for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition under Section 878 of the Revised Administrative Code. He was sentenced to imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed this conviction in its decision dated June 26, 1975. Subsequently, Amigable filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court on November 11, 1975.
On November 24, 1975, the petitioner filed a petition to hold his appeal in abeyance. He anchored this motion on his pending application for amnesty under Presidential Decree No. 95, filed on February 27, 1973. He submitted a certification from a military officer, Captain Enrique J. Lacanilao, dated November 18, 1975, stating that his amnesty application was still under process. He invoked Presidential Decree No. 206, which provides for the suspension of proceedings in such cases.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should dismiss the petition for review due to the petitioner’s failure to prosecute his appeal.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for failure to prosecute. The legal logic is grounded in procedural rules governing the diligent pursuit of appeals. While the petitioner initially sought a suspension of proceedings based on a pending amnesty application, he subsequently failed to fulfill his duty to inform the Court of the status or outcome of that application. The Court noted that nothing more had been heard from the petitioner despite letters sent to him requesting information. Furthermore, his own counsel reported unsuccessful attempts to contact him since December 1980.
The pendency of an amnesty application, by itself, does not indefinitely toll the judicial process without affirmative action from the applicant to update the court. The petitioner’s inaction and inability to be contacted constituted a clear abandonment of his appeal. Consequently, the Court applied the principle that a party must prosecute his case with reasonable diligence. The failure to do so warrants dismissal for failure to prosecute, as it impedes the orderly administration of justice and the final disposition of cases. The Court thus dismissed the petition and directed the remand of the records to the trial court for execution of the judgment.