GR L 26794; (November, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-26794 November 15, 1967
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and/or BUREAU OF CUSTOMS and/or CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE and/or A. R. REYES & COMPANY, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
On May 19, 1964, the Insurance Company of North America, as subrogee of consignee Uy Tit & Co. Inc., filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover P21,040.69, which it paid to the consignee for the alleged loss of sixteen cartons of Industrial Wheel Brushes, Measuring Instruments and Hand Tools. The shipment was discharged in good order by SS “Lica Maersk” into the custody of the defendants. The defendants were the Customs Arrastre Service, the Bureau of Customs, and/or A.R. Reyes & Co., the operator of the Customs Bonded Warehouse. The Bureau of Customs and the Customs Arrastre Service claimed they lacked the capacity to sue or be sued and that the plaintiff failed to comply with Act 3083, as amended by Commonwealth Act 327. A.R. Reyes & Co. claimed the complaint was premature as the consignee had not yet claimed the cargo or presented the necessary delivery permit. A pre-trial was held on February 20, 1965, but no settlement was reached, and the case was set for trial. Subsequently, on March 11, 1965, the plaintiff amended the complaint to include the Republic of the Philippines as a defendant. The Republic filed its answer on May 10, 1965, adopting the answers of the Bureau of Customs and the Customs Arrastre Service. The case was not set for hearing thereafter. On August 31, 1966, the trial court dismissed the case for the plaintiff’s lack of interest to prosecute. The plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the case for the plaintiff’s lack of interest to prosecute.
RULING
No, the trial court did not err. The dismissal was proper. The last pleading (the Republic’s answer) was filed on May 10, 1965. The court dismissed the case on August 31, 1966, after one year, three months, and twenty-one days of inactivity by the plaintiff. This prolonged period demonstrated a lack of interest in prosecuting the case. While the clerk of court has a duty to calendar cases and notify parties, the plaintiff cannot rely solely on this duty and is not relieved of its own obligation to prosecute the case diligently. The plaintiff should have called the court’s attention to the need to calendar the case if it was neglected. Furthermore, a pre-trial had already been conducted on February 20, 1965. The subsequent filing of an amended complaint, to which the Republic merely adopted existing pleadings, did not necessitate another pre-trial, as it would have been impractical and time-consuming. Additionally, the suit against the Republic of the Philippines and its agencies (the Bureau of Customs and the Customs Arrastre Service) for arrastre operations cannot be maintained due to their immunity from suit, as established in Mobil Philippines Exploration v. Customs Arrastre Service. The order of dismissal was affirmed.