Espiritu v. Lazaro
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners Jazmin L. Espiritu and Porfirio Lazaro, Jr., as heirs of the late Porfirio Lazaro, Sr., filed a complaint against respondents Vladimir G. Lazaro, Ma. Corazon S. Lazaro, Ma. Esperanza S. Lazaro, Vladi Miguel S. Lazaro, China Banking Corporation, and Winifrida B. Sison. The complaint alleged that the deceased had two dollar time deposit accounts with China Banking Corporation, and that the respondents, particularly Vladimir and Ma. Corazon Lazaro, had transferred these funds to their children, thereby depriving the petitioners of their rightful share. Petitioners sought recovery of their share of the deposits, totaling US$211,014.23, along with moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and costs. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners filed their complaint on June 29, 1998. The trial court initially granted a preliminary attachment, levying five real properties. Respondents filed motions to set aside the attachment and to dismiss the complaint, which were denied. After further motions and a partial discharge of attachment, respondent Sison filed her Answer on March 31, 2000. Respondents Lazaro filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) regarding a prior order, which was denied by the Supreme Court on January 21, 2002. On July 19, 2002, respondents Lazaro filed a Cautionary Answer. Subsequently, on July 24, 2003, the trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute, citing the petitioners' inaction in setting the case for pre-trial. The CA affirmed this dismissal on June 29, 2007, and denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration on December 19, 2007. 3. The Petition: This petition for review on certiorari assails the CA's decision and resolution affirming the dismissal of the case. Petitioners argue that the CA erred in applying the ruling in Olave v. Mistas, in not finding the case unripe for pre-trial, and in dismissing the appeal based on procedural rules. They contend that the case was not ripe for pre-trial because respondents had not yet filed their supplemental answer and a motion for extension was pending. Petitioners also cite A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, suggesting the Clerk of Court also has a duty to issue a notice of pre-trial. They urge the Court to set aside technicalities for reasons of equity, due process, and fair play, and to allow the case to proceed on its merits, arguing no substantial prejudice was caused to the respondents.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in applying the ruling of the Supreme Court in Olave v. Mistas to the case. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in not ruling that the case was not yet ripe for pre-trial, considering the duty to set the case for pre-trial and the effect of a cautionary answer. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in dismissing the appeal based on Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, particularly regarding the need for allegation and proof of lack of interest or prejudice. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in not taking cognizance of Section 1.2 of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, in effect since August 16, 2004.
Ruling
The petition is denied due course. The Court of Appeals Decision dated June 29, 2007 and Resolution dated December 19, 2007 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
The provided text does not contain any ratio decidendi related to the application of the ruling in Olave v. Mistas. Therefore, this issue cannot be addressed with the given information. On the issue of failure to prosecute and ripeness for pre-trial: The Court reiterated that plaintiffs are duty-bound to prosecute their case with utmost diligence and reasonable dispatch. Conversely, defendants have the right to a speedy disposition of the case. The prevailing rule and jurisprudence at the time the incidents occurred, prior to the effectivity of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, should be applied. Section 1 of Rule 18 of the Rules of Court imposes the duty on the plaintiff to set the case for pre-trial after the last pleading is served and filed. Section 3 of Rule 17 allows dismissal for failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time or failure to comply with the rules. The filing of a cautionary answer by respondents on July 19, 2002, which petitioners received on August 5, 2002, meant that the last pleading was served and filed. Petitioners' belief that they had to wait for the resolution of the motion for extension to file a supplemental answer and for the supplemental answer itself was misplaced. The Court emphasized that petitioners should not have waited for the court to act on the motion or for the defendants to file their supplemental answer; the case was already ripe for pre-trial once the cautionary answer was filed and no reply was made by the petitioners. The Court found no justifiable reason for petitioners' failure to file a motion to set the case for pre-trial, dismissing their insistence that the case was not yet ripe as erroneous. The burden to show compelling reasons for a liberal application of the rule was on the petitioners, and they failed to adduce any such reason. On the sanction of dismissal: The Court clarified that the sanction of dismissal may be imposed even absent any allegation and proof of the plaintiff's lack of interest to prosecute the action, or of any prejudice to the defendant resulting from the failure of the plaintiff to comply with the rules. The failure of the plaintiff to prosecute the action without any justifiable cause within a reasonable period of time gives rise to the presumption that the plaintiff is no longer interested in obtaining the relief prayed for. In this case, the petitioners' inaction for almost one year after receiving the cautionary answer, without filing a motion to set the case for pre-trial, led to the presumption of lack of interest, justifying the dismissal. On the applicability of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC: The Court held that since the incidents occurred prior to the effectivity of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC on August 16, 2004, its guidelines should not be made applicable to this case. The prevailing rule and jurisprudence at that time were the proper basis for resolution. Therefore, the argument that the Clerk of Court also has a duty to issue the notice of pre-trial under A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC was correctly disregarded by the CA.
Main Doctrine
The duty to set a case for pre-trial rests with the plaintiff. Failure to do so within a reasonable time, without justifiable cause, may lead to the dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute, even in the absence of proof of lack of interest or prejudice to the defendant.