GR 102553; (July, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 102553 July 18, 1994
PACIFIC BANKING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, WILLIAM LOK GO, FRANKLIN LOK GO, NATHALIE LOK GO-ONG and CARL DICKSON LOK GO, represented by KENNETH LY LOK, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents filed an action for annulment of foreclosure and damages against petitioner Pacific Banking Corporation before the RTC of Pasig. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of private respondents, declaring the foreclosure of two specific properties null and void and ordering their titles restored. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on November 26, 1990.
Nine months later, on August 16, 1991, private respondents moved to dismiss the appeal in the Court of Appeals for failure to prosecute, citing petitioner’s inaction in causing the transmittal of the case records. Petitioner opposed, arguing it had followed up the transmittal but was delayed as the stenographic reporters had not completed the transcripts, and it had only recently been required to pay for them under a new Supreme Court policy. It also contended that the duty to transmit records lay with the trial court clerk.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s appeal for failure to prosecute.
RULING
The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing the appellant’s affirmative duty to prosecute an appeal with reasonable diligence. The nine-month period of inactivity from the filing of the notice of appeal to the motion to dismiss demonstrated petitioner’s lack of zeal. Its excuse—incomplete stenographic notes—was insufficient. Petitioner could have, but did not, avail of remedial measures such as filing a motion to compel the trial court’s functionaries to complete the transcripts or to transmit the records.
The legal logic is anchored on the principle that an appellant cannot remain passive and blame court personnel for delays. The duty to ensure the timely transmittal of records rests primarily on the appellant to prevent procedural stagnation. The Court cited the doctrine in Fagtanac v. Court of Appeals, which obligates the appellant to spur action from court clerks and, if necessary, seek court orders to compel performance. Petitioner’s inaction constituted negligence warranting dismissal for failure to prosecute. The petition for certiorari and mandamus was therefore denied.