GR 181020; (November, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 181020 ; November 25, 2009
JAZMIN L. ESPIRITU and PORFIRIO LAZARO, JR., Petitioners, vs. VLADIMIR G. LAZARO, MA. CORAZON S. LAZARO, MA. ESPERENZA S. LAZARO, VLADI MIGUEL S. LAZARO, CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, and WINIFRIDA B. SISON, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, heirs of the late Porfirio Lazaro, Sr., filed a complaint for recovery of personal property and damages against respondents, alleging that dollar time deposit accounts of the deceased with China Banking Corporation were improperly transferred to the children of respondent Vladimir Lazaro. The trial court initially granted a writ of preliminary attachment. After protracted proceedings, including petitions to higher courts challenging interlocutory orders, respondents Vladimir Lazaro and others filed a “Cautionary Answer with Manifestation” on July 19, 2002. This pleading stated that counsel needed more time and adopted portions of co-defendant Sison’s existing Answer, while reserving the right to file a Supplemental/Amended Answer. Petitioners received this on August 5, 2002.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute due to petitioners’ inaction in setting the case for pre-trial.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. Under Section 1, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the plaintiff’s duty to promptly move to set the case for pre-trial after the last pleading has been served. The “Cautionary Answer” filed by respondents constituted a responsive pleading that perfected the issues for trial. Petitioners erroneously insisted that the case was not ripe for pre-trial pending a supplemental answer. The Court, citing Olave v. Mistas, ruled that plaintiffs cannot wait indefinitely for the court to act on a pending motion or for defendants to file an amended pleading; they must proactively move for pre-trial after the last pleading is filed. Petitioners’ failure to act for over eleven months from receipt of the Cautionary Answer constituted an unreasonable delay, warranting dismissal for failure to prosecute. The Court found no compelling reason for liberal application, as petitioners failed to justify their inaction or show that dismissal would cause a miscarriage of justice. The sanction of dismissal applies even without proof of defendant prejudice, as prolonged inaction presumes the plaintiff’s loss of interest in pursuing the case.