GR L 5137; (April, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5137 April 27, 1954
E.E. ELSER, INC., and ATLANTIC MUTUAL INS. CO., plaintiff-appellants, vs. DE LA RAMA STEAMSHIP CO., INC., and/or MANILA TERMINAL CO., INC., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The plaintiffs-appellants filed a complaint on September 1, 1947, in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover the sum of P3,097.34, which they paid under an insurance policy for goods lost while in the custody of the defendants-appellees. The defendants filed their answers. The plaintiffs took no further action for almost four years until they filed an amended complaint on July 26, 1951. After the defendants answered the amended complaint, the court, on its own motion, set the case for hearing on August 21, 1951. At the scheduled hearing, the plaintiffs moved for a postponement, stating that an important witness could not be found. The court denied the motion, citing that the case had been pending since 1947 and the setting was made by the court motu proprio. Upon denial, the plaintiffs submitted the case for decision without presenting any evidence. The defendants then moved for dismissal. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the case for lack of prosecution upon denying the plaintiffs’ motion for postponement and after the plaintiffs submitted the case without evidence.
RULING
Yes, the trial court correctly dismissed the case. The dismissal was in conformity with Section 3, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court for lack of prosecution. The plaintiffs never moved for trial and filed an amended complaint only after a lapse of nearly four years, during which they had ample time to prepare their witnesses or secure their depositions. The court’s denial of the postponement was proper as the plaintiffs failed to present an affidavit indicating the materiality of the absent witness’s testimony or to show due diligence in procuring the witness, as required by Section 5 of Rule 31. Since the plaintiffs submitted the case without any evidence in support of their claim after the denial, dismissal logically followed. The order of dismissal is affirmed.