GR 155193; (November, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 155193 ; November 26, 2004
ELEUTERIO OLAVE, ET AL., petitioners, vs. TEODULO MISTAS, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Respondents Teodulo and Pacita Mistas filed a complaint for the nullification of an “Affidavit of Adjudication with Sale” over a parcel of land, alleging they were co-owners. They claimed the property was previously owned by Basilio, Ceferina, and Maria Mistas, all deceased. Petitioners Eleuterio and Luciano Olave, claiming to be heirs of Ceferina, executed the affidavit and sold the entire property to other petitioners. The trial court ordered the respondents to implead all other indispensable heirs as parties-plaintiffs. Respondents filed a second amended complaint including them.
However, respondent Pacita Mistas executed the required certificate of non-forum shopping on behalf of her sister, Antonina, without submitting a Special Power of Attorney. Upon petitioners’ motion, the court directed compliance. Respondents eventually filed the SPA. Subsequently, respondents failed to set the case for pre-trial. Petitioners thus moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. The Court of Appeals reversed, ordering the remand for further proceedings, citing the respondents’ eventual compliance with the forum shopping requirement and finding no clear intent to delay.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s order dismissing the complaint for failure to prosecute.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court’s dismissal, albeit modifying it to be without prejudice. The ruling is grounded on the mandatory nature of procedural rules and the principle that a party’s failure to prosecute their action warrants dismissal. While the Court of Appeals focused on the respondents’ eventual submission of the Special Power of Attorney, it overlooked their subsequent and more critical procedural default: their failure to move to set the case for pre-trial after filing their amended complaint.
Under Section 1, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, it is the plaintiff’s duty to promptly move for pre-trial after the last pleading is filed. The respondents’ inaction for an unreasonable period constituted a clear failure to prosecute, which prejudices the defendants and clogs court dockets. The eventual compliance with the forum shopping requirement did not cure this subsequent neglect. Dismissal for failure to prosecute is a disciplinary measure to compel prompt dispatch of business. The trial court’s dismissal was thus justified, but the Supreme Court modified it to be without prejudice, as the respondents’ initial lapses in impleading parties and the forum shopping certificate, while negligent, did not amount to willful and deliberate forum shopping that would warrant dismissal with prejudice. The paramount interest of justice is better served by allowing a refiling of the action on its merits.