Republic
of the Philippines
Supreme
Court
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
|
PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, - versus - EXPLORER MARITIME CO., LTD., OWNER OF THE VESSEL M/V
EXPLORER, WALLEM PHILS. SHIPPING, INC., ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. AND FOREMOST
INTERNATIONAL PORT SERVICES, INC., Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 175409 Present: Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO,
and VILLARAMA,
JR., JJ. Promulgated: September
7, 2011 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, J.:
This is a Petition for
Review on Certiorari assailing the
Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals dated July 20, 2006 in CA-G.R. CV No. 78834, which
affirmed the Order[2] of
Branch 37, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila dated February 14, 2001
dismissing the Complaint for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute the same for
an unreasonable length of time.
On March 22, 1995,
petitioner Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation (PCIC), as insurer-subrogee,
filed with the RTC of Manila a Complaint against respondents, to wit: the
unknown owner of the vessel M/V Explorer (common carrier), Wallem Philippines
Shipping, Inc. (ship agent), Asian Terminals, Inc. (arrastre), and Foremost
International Port Services, Inc. (broker).
PCIC sought to recover from the respondents the sum of P342,605.50,
allegedly representing the value of lost or damaged shipment paid to the
insured, interest and attorneys fees.
The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 95-73340 and was raffled to Branch 37. On the same date, PCIC filed a similar case
against respondents Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc., Asian Terminals, Inc.,
and Foremost International Port Services, Inc., but, this time, the fourth
defendant is the unknown owner of the vessel M/V Taygetus. This second case was docketed as Civil Case
No. 95-73341 and was raffled to
Branch 38.
Respondents filed their
respective answers with counterclaims in Civil Case No. 95-73340, pending
before Branch 37. PCIC later filed its
answer to the counterclaims. On
September 18, 1995, PCIC filed an ex
parte motion to set the case for pre-trial conference, which was granted by
the trial court in its Order dated September 26, 1995. However, before the scheduled date of the
pre-trial conference, PCIC filed on September 19, 1996 its Amended
Complaint. The Unknown Owner of the
vessel M/V Explorer and Asian Terminals, Inc. filed anew their respective
answers with counterclaims.
Foremost International
Port Services, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was later denied by the
trial court in an Order dated December 4, 1996.
On December 5, 2000,
respondent common carrier, the Unknown Owner of the vessel M/V Explorer,
and Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground
that PCIC failed to prosecute its action for an unreasonable length of
time. PCIC allegedly filed its
Opposition, claiming that the trial court has not yet acted on its Motion to
Disclose which it purportedly filed on November 19, 1997. In said motion, PCIC supposedly prayed for
the trial court to order respondent Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. to
disclose the true identity and whereabouts of defendant Unknown Owner of the
Vessel M/V Explorer.
On February 14, 2001,
the trial court issued an Order dismissing Civil Case No. 95-73340 for failure of petitioner to prosecute
for an unreasonable length of time. Upon
receipt of the order of dismissal on March 20, 2001, PCIC allegedly realized
that its Motion to Disclose was inadvertently filed with Branch 38 of the RTC of Manila, where the similar case involving the
vessel M/V Taygetus (Civil Case No. 95-73341) was raffled to, and not with Branch 37, where the present case (Civil Case No. 95-73340) was pending.
Thus, PCIC filed a Motion
for Reconsideration of the February 14, 2001 Order, explaining that its Motion
to Disclose was erroneously filed with Branch 38. PCIC claimed that the mistake stemmed from
the confusion created by an error of the docket section of the RTC of Manila in
stamping the same docket number to the simultaneously filed cases. According to PCIC, it believed that it was
still premature to move for the setting of the pre-trial conference with the
Motion to Disclose still pending resolution.
On May 6, 2003, the trial court issued the Order denying PCICs Motion
for Reconsideration.
On May 21, 2003, PCIC,
through new counsel, appealed to the Court of Appeals. On July 20, 2006, the Court of Appeals
rendered the assailed Decision affirming the February 14, 2001 Order of the
RTC. On November 6, 2006, the Court of
Appeals issued its Resolution[3]
denying PCICs Motion for Reconsideration.
Hence, this Petition
for Review on Certiorari. On June 27, 2007, this Court required the
counsel of the Unknown Owner of the vessel M/V Explorer and Wallem
Philippines Shipping, Inc. to submit proof of identification of the owner of
said vessel.[4] On September 17, 2007, this Court, pursuant
to the information provided by Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc., directed its
Division Clerk of Court to change Unknown Owner to Explorer Maritime Co.,
Ltd. in the title of this case.[5]
In affirming the
dismissal of Civil Case No. 95-73340, the Court of Appeals held that PCIC
should have filed a motion to resolve the Motion to Disclose after a reasonable
time from its alleged erroneous filing.
PCIC could have also followed up the status of the case by making
inquiries on the courts action on their motion, instead of just waiting for
any resolution from the court for more than three years. The appellate court likewise noted that the
Motion to Disclose was not the only erroneous filing done by PCICs former
counsel, the Linsangan Law Office. The
records of the case at bar show that on November 16, 1997, said law office
filed with Branch 37 a Pre-trial Brief for the case captioned as Philippine
Charter Insurance Corporation v. Unknown Owners of the Vessel MV Taygetus, et al., Civil Case No. 95-73340. The firm later filed a Manifestation and
Motion stating that the same was intended for Civil Case No. 95-73341 which was
pending before Branch 38. All these
considered, the Court of Appeals ruled that PCIC must bear the consequences of
its counsels inaction and negligence, as well as its own. [6]
PCIC claims that the
merits of its case warrant that it not be decided on technicalities. Furthermore, PCIC claims that its former
counsel merely committed excusable negligence when it erroneously filed the
Motion to Disclose with the wrong branch of the court where the case is
pending.
The basis for the
dismissal by the trial court of Civil Case No. 95-73340 is Section 3, Rule 17
and Section 1, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, which respectively provide:
Section
3. Dismissal
due to the fault of the plaintiff. If, for no justifiable cause, the
plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in
chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length
of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint
may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the courts own motion,
without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim
in the same or in a separate action.
This dismissal shall have the effect of adjudication upon the merits,
unless otherwise declared by the court.
x x x x
Section
1. When conducted. After the last
pleading has been served and filed, it shall be the duty of the plaintiff to
promptly move ex parte that the case
be set for pre-trial.
In the fairly recent
case of Espiritu v. Lazaro,[7]
this Court, in affirming the dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute on
account of the omission of the plaintiff therein to move to set the case for
pre-trial for almost one year from their receipt of the Answer, issued several
guidelines in effecting such dismissal:
Respondents
Lazaro filed the Cautionary Answer with Manifestation and Motion to File a
Supplemental/Amended Answer on July 19, 2002, a copy of which was received by
petitioners on August 5, 2002. Believing that the pending motion had to be
resolved first, petitioners waited for the court to act on the motion to file a
supplemental answer. Despite the lapse
of almost one year,[8]
petitioners kept on waiting, without doing anything to stir the court into
action.
In any
case, petitioners should not have waited for the court to act on the motion to
file a supplemental answer or for the defendants to file a supplemental
answer. As previously stated, the rule
clearly states that the case must be set for pre-trial after the last pleading
is served and filed. Since respondents
already filed a cautionary answer and [petitioners did not file any reply to
it] the case was already ripe for pre-trial.
It bears
stressing 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 will
give rise to the presumption that he is no longer interested in obtaining the
relief prayed for.
In this
case, there was no justifiable reason for petitioners' failure to file a motion
to set the case for pre-trial. Petitioners' stubborn insistence that the case
was not yet ripe for pre-trial is erroneous. Although petitioners state that
there are strong and compelling reasons justifying a liberal application of the
rule, the Court finds none in this case. The
burden to show that there are compelling reasons that would make a dismissal of
the case unjustified is on petitioners, and they have not adduced any such
compelling reason.[9]
(Emphases supplied.)
In the case at bar, the
alleged Motion to Disclose was filed on November 19, 1997. Respondents filed the Motion to Dismiss on
December 5, 2000. By that time, PCICs
inaction was thus already almost three years.
There is therefore no question that the failure to prosecute in the case
at bar was for an unreasonable length of time.
Consequently, the Complaint may be dismissed 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 burden is now
on PCIC to show that there are compelling reasons that would render the
dismissal of the case unjustified.
The
only explanation that the PCIC can offer for its omission is that it was
waiting for the resolution of its Motion to Disclose, which it allegedly filed
with another branch of the court.
According to PCIC, it was premature for it to move for the setting of
the pre-trial conference before the resolution of the Motion to Disclose.
We disagree. Respondent Explorer Maritime Co., Ltd., which was then referred to as the
Unknown Owner of the vessel M/V Explorer, had already been properly
impleaded pursuant to Section 14, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
Section
14. Unknown
identity or name of defendant Whenever the identity or name of a
defendant is unknown, he may be sued as the unknown owner, heir, devisee, or by
such other designation as the case may require; when his identity or true name is
discovered, the pleading must be amended accordingly.
In the Amended
Complaint, PCIC alleged that defendant Unknown Owner of the vessel M/V
Explorer is a foreign corporation whose identity or name or office address
are unknown to PCIC but is doing business in the Philippines through its local
agent, co-defendant Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc., a domestic corporation.[10] PCIC then added that both defendants may be
served with summons and other court processes in the address of Wallem
Philippines Shipping, Inc.,[11]
which was correctly done[12]
pursuant to Section 12, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
Sec.
12. Service upon foreign private
juridical entity. When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has transacted
business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent
designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such
agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect, or on any
of its officers or agents within the Philippines.
As all the parties have been
properly impleaded, the resolution of the Motion to Disclose was unnecessary
for the purpose of setting the case for pre-trial.
Furthermore, Section 3,
Rule 3 of the Rules of Court likewise provides that an agent acting in his own
name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without
joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the
principal. Since Civil Case No. 95-73340
was an action for damages, the agent may be properly sued without impleading
the principal. Thus, even assuming that
petitioner had filed its Motion to Disclose with the proper court, its pendency
did not bar PCIC from moving for the setting of the case for pre-trial as
required under Rule 18, Section 1 of the Rules of Court.[13]
Indeed, we find no
error on the part of the lower courts in not giving credit to the purportedly
erroneously filed Motion to Disclose. The only document presented by PCIC to
prove the same, a photocopy thereof attached to their Motion for
Reconsideration with the RTC, is highly suspicious. Said photocopy[14]
of the Motion to Disclose contains an explanation why the same was filed
through registered mail. However, it was
also stamped as RECEIVED by the RTC on November 19, 1997,[15]
indicating that said attachment was a receiving copy. The receiving copy was not signed by any
court personnel[16] and
does not contain any proof of service on the parties. The Motion sets the hearing thereon on the
same date of its filing, November 19, 1997.[17]
Likewise, PCICs
attempt to shift the blame to the docket section of the RTC of Manila, which
allegedly stamped the same docket number to Civil Case No. 95-73340 (involving
M/V Explorer) and Civil Case No. 95-73341 (involving M/V Taygetus), is
completely unfounded. A perusal of the
Complaint in the case at bar shows that it was correctly stamped Civil Case No. 95-73340, and the branch number
was correctly written as 37.[18] PCIC did not bother to attach the alleged
complaint filed in Branch 38 involving M/V Taygetus. However, it does not escape our attention
that PCIC in its own pleadings repeatedly refer to the case pending in Branch
38 as Civil Case No. 95-73341, contrary to its claim that the two cases were
docketed with the same number. In all,
PCIC failed to adequately account how its counsel could have mistakenly filed
the Motion intended for Branch 37 in Branch 38. Worse, said counsel also
allegedly only discovered the error after three years from the filing of the
Motion to Disclose. Such a circumstance could have only occurred if both PCIC and its counsel had indeed
been uninterested and lax in prosecuting the case.
We therefore hold that the
RTC was correct in dismissing Civil Case No. 95-73340 for failure of the
plaintiff to prosecute the same for an unreasonable length of time. As discussed by the Court of Appeals, PCIC
could have filed a motion for the early resolution of their Motion to Disclose
after the apparent failure of the court to do so. If PCIC had done so, it would possibly have
discovered the error in the filing of said motion much earlier. Finally, it is worth noting that the
defendants also have the right to the speedy disposition of the case; the delay
of the pre-trial and the trial might cause the impairment of their defenses.[19]
WHEREFORE,
the Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
July 20, 2006 in CA-G.R. CV No. 78834 is hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against
petitioner Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice
|
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
[1] Rollo, pp. 33-40; penned by Associate
Justice Jose Catral Mendoza (now a member of this Court) with Associate
Justices Elvi John S. Asuncion and Arturo G. Tayag, concurring.
[2] CA rollo, p. 36.
[3] Rollo, p. 43.
[4] Id.
at 90.
[5] Id.
at 110a.
[6] Id.
at 38-39.
[7] G.R.
No. 181020, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 566.
[8] The
trial court in the cited case dismissed the complaint on July 24, 2003,
slightly less than one year from the plaintiffs receipt of the Cautionary Answer
on August 5, 2002. (Id. at 570.)
[9] Id.
at 572-573.
[10] Records,
p. 75.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
at 37.
[13] Rule
18, Section 1 provides that [a]fter the last pleading has been served and
filed, it shall be the duty of the plaintiff to promptly move ex parte that the case be set for
pretrial.
[14] Records,
pp. 141-144.
[15] Id.
at 141.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Id.
at 1.
[19] See
Olave v. Mistas, G.R. No. 155193,
November 26, 2004, 444 SCRA 479, 493.