G.R. No. 126857 , September 18, 2002
Spouses Alendry Caviles and Flora Potenciano-Caviles, Petitioners, vs. The Honorable Seventeenth Division, Court of Appeals, Tiaong Rural Bank, Inc., Crispin K. Castillo, and Felix Marcellana in his capacity as Deputy Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners obtained loans from respondent Tiaong Rural Bank, Inc., mortgaging several properties in Makati, Manila, and Cabuyao, Laguna. Disputing the loan amount, petitioners filed a complaint for Breach of Contract with Preliminary Injunction (Civil Case No. 88-321) before the RTC of Makati City. Pending this action, respondents initiated extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings on the mortgaged properties. The Makati Court refused to enjoin the foreclosure of the Laguna properties, citing territorial jurisdiction limits. Petitioners then filed a similar Breach of Contract case (Civil Case No. B-2828) before the RTC of Biñan, Laguna (Branch 24), which was dismissed due to the pending Makati case. Petitioners appealed this dismissal. Subsequently, petitioners filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction (Civil Case No. B-2969) before the RTC of Biñan, Laguna (Assisting Court), seeking to enjoin the foreclosure sale of the Laguna properties. The Assisting Court dismissed the petition, finding petitioners failed to establish a clear right and violated the rule against splitting a cause of action. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. During the appeal, certain exhibits were missing from the records transmitted. Despite notifications and motions from respondents to complete the records, petitioners failed to act. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute with reasonable diligence and denied the motion for reconsideration. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, arguing the dismissal was grave abuse of discretion, the missing exhibits were not indispensable, and they were entitled to an injunction.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal for failure to prosecute.
2. Whether petitioners’ filing of multiple civil actions constitutes forum shopping.

RULING

1. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners failed to prosecute their appeal with reasonable diligence. From filing their notice of appeal, petitioners were inactive, while respondents actively pursued completing the missing exhibits. Petitioners did not respond to motions or comply with court resolutions. Their excuse of lost exhibits due to a fire and difficulty obtaining copies was unpersuasive, as respondents managed to secure copies. Petitioners’ inaction warranted dismissal under the principle that appellants must prosecute appeals diligently and cannot delay proceedings.
2. Petitioners were guilty of forum shopping. Filing the petition for prohibition (Civil Case No. B-2969) before the Biñan Assisting Court while an appeal from the dismissal of a similar case (Civil Case No. B-2828) was pending violated the rule against splitting a single cause of action. The Supreme Court affirmed the Assisting Court’s finding that petitioners failed to establish a clear right to injunctive relief and that the extra-judicial foreclosure was conducted in accordance with law.
The petition for certiorari was dismissed for lack of merit.