Pua v. Deyto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Pablo Pua, a wholesale rice trader, delivered rice worth P766,800.00 to Jennelita Ang, who operated under the trade name JD Grains Center. Ang paid for the rice with two postdated checks, which were subsequently dishonored due to being drawn from a closed account. Upon attempting to collect, Pua was informed by Ang's mother, Lourdes Deyto, that Ang was missing. Pua then demanded payment from Deyto, who refused. Procedural History: Pua filed a complaint for collection of sum of money with preliminary attachment against Ang and Deyto. Summons was served on Deyto, but Ang could not be located. Deyto filed an answer and a motion to dismiss, which was denied. Pua sought to serve summons on Ang by publication, which was eventually accomplished after delays. The case was archived for inactivity and subsequently dismissed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for failure to prosecute. Pua's motion for reconsideration was denied. He appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the delay was due to the death of his counsel and his continued payment of the attachment bond. The CA affirmed the RTC's dismissal, finding a pattern of unreasonable delay. The Petition: Pua filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. He contended that the demise of his counsel caused the delay and that he had shown continued interest by paying the attachment bond premiums and serving summons by publication. Pua argued that the case should be decided on its merits rather than technicalities. The respondents, particularly Deyto, countered that the numerous delays throughout the proceedings warranted dismissal for failure to prosecute, citing the time taken for summons by publication, pre-trial scheduling, and overall case progression.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiff incurred unreasonable delay in prosecuting the present case. Whether the dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute was proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit, affirming the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court found that Pua committed unreasonable delay in prosecuting the case after the summons for Ang had been published.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of unreasonable delay in prosecuting the case: The Court found that Pua committed unreasonable delay in prosecuting his case against the respondents, specifically after the summons for Ang had been published. While the delay in serving summons on Ang was partly attributable to the sheriff's failure to immediately file a return of service, Pua took no further action after the summons was published on May 31, 2002. The case was archived on January 24, 2003, and dismissed on October 1, 2004, for Pua's lack of interest to prosecute. Pua only filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion to declare Ang in default after the dismissal order was issued. The Court clarified that the death of Pua's counsel, Atty. Kamid Abdul, did not excuse the delay, as Pua was represented by a law firm with other lawyers and had even engaged a second law firm. The Court reiterated that a client is bound by the actions of his counsel. The renewal of the attachment bond was not considered an indication of intent to prosecute, as it is not a substitute for necessary pleadings or motions. On the propriety of the dismissal for failure to prosecute: The Court affirmed the dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute. Section 3, Rule 17 of the Revised Rules of Court authorizes the dismissal of a case if the plaintiff fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time. The Court emphasized that such dismissal has the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court. Pua's failure to take any action for more than two years after summons was served by publication on Ang, an indispensable party, and only filing a motion to declare Ang in default after the dismissal of the main case, constituted an unreasonable delay. The Court found no justifiable cause for this prolonged inaction, thus warranting the dismissal of the complaint.
Main Doctrine
A dismissal for failure to prosecute, under Section 3, Rule 17 of the Revised Rules of Court, has the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court. The plaintiff's failure to take any action on the case after summons was served by publication on an indispensable party, for an unreasonable length of time, warrants dismissal.