G.R. No. L-11839; August 21, 1958
MANUEL MASIGLAT, petitioner-appellant, vs. CITY MAYOR OF PASAY CITY, ET AL., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Manuel Masiglat, a lieutenant in the Pasay City Police Department, was suspended by City Mayor Enrique Manaloto following the filing of administrative charges against him with the Municipal Board for misconduct in office, irregular performance of duty, and violation of law. The specifications included vote solicitation, carrying a gun inside a prohibited electoral area, and using a government jeep for electioneering. After the administrative case remained pending beyond sixty days from his suspension, Masiglat demanded reinstatement pursuant to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 557 . Upon the City Mayor’s refusal, Masiglat filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction on May 7, 1954. The lower court granted a preliminary mandatory injunction on May 26, 1954, ordering his reinstatement pending final determination. On July 27, 1954, the Municipal Board found Masiglat guilty of two charges and ordered his separation from service. Masiglat appealed this decision to the Commissioner of Civil Service, which appeal was held in abeyance pending the outcome of this petition. Following the Board’s decision, respondents again effected his separation on August 11, 1954, but the trial court, on September 27, 1954, upheld the preliminary injunction. After new city officials were elected in November 1955, the trial court, upon Masiglat’s motion, ordered the new Municipal Board members on June 16, 1956, to manifest their stand on their predecessors’ action. They received the order on July 26, 1956, and answered that they upheld the prior action. No further action was taken by Masiglat until the lower court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute on October 19, 1956.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court correctly dismissed the petition for failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The Court held that what constitutes an “unreasonable length of time” under Section 3, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court depends on the circumstances of each case and the sound discretion of the trial court, which will not be disturbed absent patent abuse. In this case, the dismissal was justified because from the time issues were joined on December 14, 1954, petitioner took no steps to have the case tried for over one and a half years until May 4, 1956, when he moved to set it for hearing. Even then, he further delayed proceedings by filing a supplemental petition. The Court noted that petitioner, having secured reinstatement via the preliminary injunction, lost interest in a prompt decision to avoid forfeiting that advantage. The Court emphasized the policy to expedite case disposal, a duty incumbent especially upon the plaintiff, and more strictly in special civil actions where a preliminary injunction has been granted. The Court declined to rule on the legality of the Municipal Board’s dismissal decision as the issue had become moot due to the dismissal of the petition, and it could be resolved in Masiglat’s pending appeal before the Commissioner of Civil Service. Costs were taxed against appellant.