GR L 21043; (March, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21043 March 30, 1966
APOLONIO VILLANUEVA, petitioner and appellant, vs. HON. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL., respondents and appellees.
FACTS
On April 20, 1960, petitioner Apolonio Villanueva filed an action for injunction in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. He sought to restrain the respondents from enforcing a decision dated February 19, 1960, by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, which ordered the demolition of certain constructions illegally made on a portion of the Pantal River in Dagupan City. The court granted a preliminary injunction on the same date. Respondents filed their answer on May 9, 1960, later amended on June 11, 1960, to include a jurisdictional defense. The issues were joined on June 11, 1960. More than one and a half years passed without the petitioner taking any further steps to prosecute his case. Consequently, the lower court dismissed the petition on May 10, 1962, primarily on the ground that the petitioner failed to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, indicating a lack of interest. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the petitioner’s action for his failure to prosecute it for an unreasonable length of time.
RULING
Yes, the trial court’s order of dismissal is affirmed. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court’s finding that the petitioner’s inaction for over one and a half years after the issues were joined demonstrated a failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to take any step towards a hearing on the merits during this period. It rejected the petitioner’s excuses, which included the presiding judge’s travels abroad, a clogged court docket, and a policy giving preference to older cases, as there was no record showing the petitioner took steps to secure a transfer of the case or make representations for an exception. The Court emphasized that Republic Act No. 2056 , which governs cases of illegal constructions in public navigable rivers, contemplates speedy hearings and decisions. The dismissal was proper, especially since the action involved a provisional remedy (preliminary injunction) where prompt action is expected.