GR L 5325 6; (January, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5325-5326 January 19, 1955
E. E. ELSER, INC., ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. MACONDRAY & CO., INC., ET AL., defendants-appellees.
THE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., plaintiff-appellant, vs. MACONDRAY & CO., INC., ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The plaintiffs-appellants appealed from orders dismissing their two cases for failure to prosecute under section 3, Rule 30. In both cases, the defendants-appellees filed their answers in May and June 1947, making the cases ready for trial. The plaintiffs-appellants took no action to have the cases tried until August 1951, a delay of four years. The trial court dismissed the cases due to this prolonged inaction. The appellants excused their delay by stating there were about five hundred similar cases that needed to be distributed among the different branches of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and they were waiting for that distribution before moving their cases forward.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the cases for failure of the plaintiffs-appellants to prosecute them with due diligence.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of dismissal. The excuse offered by the appellants was not valid. It was the plaintiffs’ duty to ensure their cases were set for trial, notwithstanding any duty of the deputy clerk of court to set cases motu proprio under Rule 31. The Court cited its prior ruling in *Smith Bell and Co. Ltd., and Insurance Company of North America, et al. vs. American President Lines Ltd., and/or Manila Terminal Co., Inc., et al.*, which held that the clerk’s duty does not relieve the plaintiff of the obligation to have the case set for trial. A delay of four years was excessive, and the plaintiffs showed a lack of due diligence by failing to take any initiative during that period. The Court emphasized the policy to expedite case disposal and prevent docket clogging. It found no abuse of discretion by the trial court in dismissing the cases, as the circumstances were nearly identical to the cited precedents. Costs were imposed against the appellants.