GR 54416; (October, 1980) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-54416 October 17, 1980
CAPITOL RURAL BANK OF QUEZON CITY, INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. MERIDIAN ASSURANCE CORPORATION, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Capitol Rural Bank sued Elsie Romero and Meridian Assurance Corporation as solidary debtors on a promissory note. The Quezon City Court rendered judgment against both. Prior to this judgment, the same court dismissed Meridian’s cross-claim against Romero for failure to prosecute when Meridian’s counsel did not appear at the scheduled hearing for evidence. Meridian moved to set aside the judgment and the dismissal order, but this motion was denied after its counsel again failed to appear at the hearing. Meridian then appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) from the adverse judgment, the order dismissing its cross-claim, and the order denying its motion to set aside.
The city court’s order giving due course to the appeal specified it embraced only the main judgment, not the order dismissing the cross-claim. The CFI later suspended pre-trial and ordered the parties to submit memoranda on the legal issue of whether the dismissal of the cross-claim was properly included in the appeal. Meridian did not file its memorandum. After a two-year vacancy in the sala, the bank moved to dismiss Meridian’s appeal for failure to comply with the order and to prosecute the appeal. The CFI granted the dismissal. Meridian appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court as involving only a question of law.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance properly dismissed Meridian’s appeal for failure to prosecute it for an unreasonable length of time and for non-compliance with a court order.
RULING
Yes, the dismissal was proper. The Supreme Court affirmed the CFI’s order. The ruling is grounded on the principle that an appellant in a case appealed from an inferior court has the duty to prosecute the appeal with due diligence and to comply with court orders. Section 9, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court implies that such an appeal may be dismissed for the appellant’s failure to prosecute. By analogy, Section 3, Rule 17, governing dismissal for failure to prosecute in cases originally filed in the CFI, applies to appellants in appealed cases. The appellant stands in the position of a plaintiff for purposes of prosecuting the appeal.
Meridian’s inaction—its failure to file the required memorandum and to move to set the case for hearing—constituted a failure to prosecute for an unreasonable time. The Court rejected Meridian’s argument, based on Smith Bell & Co. vs. American President Lines, that it was the plaintiff bank’s duty to calendar the case. That precedent applies to cases originally filed in the CFI. Here, as the appellant, the duty to diligently prosecute rested on Meridian. Its failure warranted dismissal of its appeal. The trial court’s order was therefore justified.