GR 118349; (May, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 118349. May 23, 1997.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and STRONGHOLD INSURANCE CO., INC., respondents.
FACTS
The Regional Trial Court rendered a judgment against Ronaldo L. Calupitan and his surety, Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc., ordering them to pay Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) various sums. Stronghold filed a notice of appeal on February 4, 1991, which was approved. On June 17, 1994, PNCC moved to dismiss Stronghold’s appeal for failure to prosecute, citing a lapse of over three years without any action from Stronghold to advance its appeal. PNCC relied on jurisprudence establishing that gross inaction for more than one year amounts to a failure to prosecute.
Stronghold opposed the motion, contending it had not yet received notices from the Court of Appeals to pay docket fees or file its brief and claimed it was waiting in good faith for such notices. The Court of Appeals denied PNCC’s motion to dismiss, rationalizing that the delay was not Stronghold’s fault. The appellate court placed the responsibility for transmitting the records on the Branch Clerk of the trial court under its Internal Rules and directed the clerk to transmit the records.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss Stronghold’s appeal for failure to prosecute.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is firmly rooted in established jurisprudence that places the affirmative duty to prosecute an appeal with reasonable diligence on the appellant, not on the court or its clerks. The Court emphasized that while clerks of court have a duty to transmit records, it is the appellant’s paramount obligation to ensure the appeal progresses. An appellant cannot passively wait for notices or blame court personnel for inaction; they must proactively follow up and, if necessary, seek court orders to compel action.
The Court found Stronghold’s three-year and four-month dormancy, justified only by waiting for notices, to be an unreasonable delay constituting a failure to prosecute. This period far exceeded the one-year inaction deemed gross in prior cases. The Court explicitly held that the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals cannot override this settled doctrine. By ignoring this binding precedent and allowing the appeal to continue despite Stronghold’s complacency, the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion. The policy against delays in litigation necessitates the dismissal of appeals where appellants neglect their duty to diligently prosecute. Consequently, the Supreme Court directed the dismissal of Stronghold’s appeal.