PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. EXPLORER MARITIME CO., LTD., OWNER OF THE VESSEL M/V “EXPLORER”, WALLEM PHILS. SHIPPING, INC., ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. AND FOREMOST INTERNATIONAL PORT SERVICES, INC., Respondents.
FACTS
On March 22, 1995, petitioner Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation (PCIC), as insurer-subrogee, filed a Complaint with the RTC of Manila against respondents to recover the sum of ₱342,605.50 representing the value of a lost or damaged shipment. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 95-73340 and raffled to Branch 37. Respondents filed their respective answers with counterclaims, and PCIC filed its answer to the counterclaims. On September 18, 1995, PCIC filed an ex parte motion to set the case for pre-trial, which was granted. However, on September 19, 1996, PCIC filed an Amended Complaint. Some respondents filed new answers, and Foremost International Port Services, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied on December 4, 1996. On December 5, 2000, respondents “the Unknown Owner” of the vessel M/V “Explorer” and Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that PCIC failed to prosecute its action for an unreasonable length of time. PCIC opposed, claiming it had filed a “Motion to Disclose” on November 19, 1997, praying for the court to order Wallem to disclose the identity of the “Unknown Owner.” On February 14, 2001, the trial court issued an Order dismissing the case for failure to prosecute. Upon receipt of the order on March 20, 2001, PCIC realized its Motion to Disclose was inadvertently filed with Branch 38 (where a related case, Civil Case No. 95-73341, was pending) instead of Branch 37. PCIC filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. PCIC appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s dismissal. PCIC then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint for failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Court of Appeals Decision. The Court held that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute. The records showed that from the filing of the last responsive pleading (the Amended Answer of Asian Terminals, Inc. on January 27, 1997) until the filing of the Motion to Dismiss on December 5, 2000, a period of almost four years, PCIC took no action to move the case forward. PCIC’s purported “Motion to Disclose” was not acted upon by Branch 37 because it was filed in the wrong branch (Branch 38). PCIC’s failure to verify the status of its motion for three years constituted inexcusable negligence. The duty to prosecute a case diligently rests upon the plaintiff, and PCIC’s inaction warranted dismissal under Rule 17, Section 3 of the Rules of Court. The Court found no reversible error in the appellate court’s decision.
