THIRDDIVISION

JAZMINL.ESPIRITUand
G.R.No.181020
PORFIRIOLAZARO,JR.,

Petitioners,
Present:

CORONA,J.,

Chairperson,
versus
CHICONAZARIO,

VELASCO,JR.,

NACHURA,and
VLADIMIRG.LAZARO,MA.
PERALTA,JJ.
CORAZONS.LAZARO,MA.

ESPERENZAS.LAZARO,VLADI

MIGUELS.LAZARO,CHINA
Promulgated:
BANKINGCORPORATION,and

WINIFRIDAB.SISON,
November25,2009
Respondents.

xx

DECISION

NACHURA,J.:

[1]
ThispetitionforreviewoncertiorariassailstheJune29,2007Decision oftheCourtof
Appeals(CA),whichaffirmedthedismissalofthecaseforfailuretoprosecute.Likewiseassailed
in this petition is its Resolution dated December 19, 2007, which denied the motion for
reconsiderationofthesaiddecision.

On June 29, 1998, petitioners Jazmin L. Espiritu and Porfirio Lazaro, Jr., together with a
certain Mariquit Lazaro, filed a complaint for recovery of personal property with damages and
preliminary attachment against respondents, Vladimir G. Lazaro, Ma. Corazon S. Lazaro, Ma.
EsperanzaS.Lazaro,VladiMiguelS.Lazaro,ChinaBankingCorporation,andWinifridaB.Sison.
Petitioners,MariquitLazaroandrespondentVladimirLazaroarethelegitimatechildrenandonly
surviving heirs of the late Porfirio Lazaro, Sr. who died on March 13, 1998. Respondent Ma.
Corazon Lazaro is the wife of Vladimir Lazaro, while respondents Ma. Esperanza Lazaro and
VladiMiguelLazaroaretheirchildren.

The complaint alleged that (1) the deceased had two dollar time deposit accounts with
respondentChinaBankingCorporationintheamountsofUS$117,859.99andUS$163,492.32(2)
petitionersdemandedfromrespondentsVladimirandMa.CorazonLazarotheirshareinthesaid
amountsbutthelattertoldthemthatthedepositshadalreadybeentransferredtotheirchildren(3)
theyrequestedrespondentWinifridaSison,branchmanagerofthebank,tofreezethetimedeposit
accountsinthenamesofsaidchildren(4)respondentSisonsubsequentlyrepliedthattherewere
noexistingaccountsunderthechildrensnames(5)petitionersthenrequestedrespondentSisonto
apprise them of the status of the two dollar time deposit accounts and (6) respondent Sison
refusedtocomply,sayingthat,unlessthereisacourtorder,shemaynotgiveoutthedetailsofthe
time deposit accounts because of the Bank Secrecy Law. Petitioners prayed that respondents be
orderedtopaythemtheirthreefourthsshareinthetimedepositaccountsorUS$211,014.23,with
interest,P1,000,000.00asmoraldamages,P1,000,000.00asexemplarydamages,P300,000.00as
[2]
attorneysfeesandcostsofthesuit.

Thetrialcourtgrantedtheprayerforpreliminaryattachmentandthecorrespondingwritwas
[3]
subsequently issued after petitioners posted a bond. Five real properties were levied upon.
[4]
Respondents Lazaro filed an urgent motion to set aside and discharge the attachment, which
[5]
wasopposedbypetitioners.They,likewise,filedamotiontodismiss thecomplaintforfailure
[6]
tostateacauseofaction.RespondentSisonalsofiledamotiontodismiss onthesameground.

OnFebruary12,1999,thetrialcourtdeniedthemotiontodischargetheattachmentandthe
two motions to dismiss and directed respondents to file their answer. Respondents Lazaro and
[7]
Sison filed their respective motions for reconsideration, which were again opposed by
[8]
petitioners. In an Omnibus Order dated January 20, 2000, the trial court partially granted
respondentsLazarosprayerforapartialdischargeoftheirattachedproperties.

OnMarch31,2000,respondentSisonfiledherAnswerwithCounterclaimandCrossclaim.
[9]

RespondentsLazaroquestionedtheFebruary12,1999Orderinapetitionforcertiorarifiled
with the CA. When the latter did not rule favorably, they elevated the case to this Court. In a

Resolution dated January 21, 2002, this Court denied the petition. The Resolution became final
[10]
andexecutoryonJuly17,2002.

OnJuly19,2002,respondentsLazarofiledaCautionaryAnswerwithManifestationanda
MotiontoFileaSupplemental/AmendedAnswer.OnAugust5,2002,petitionersreceivedacopy
ofthecautionaryanswer,pertinentportionsofwhicharequotedasfollows

3.Undersignedcounsel,onaccountofhisheavyworkloadinequallyimportantcases,would
be needing more time to file herein defendants Answer. In the meantime however, by way of a
CautionaryAnswer,hereindefendantsherebymanifestthattheyareadoptingsubjecttofurther
qualification part of codefendant Sisons Answer dated March 29, 2000, more particularly,
portionsofsubheadingsI.DenialsandAdmissions,II.SpecialandAffirmativeDefensesand
III.Counterclaimwhicharepersonal,relevantandpertinenttotheirdefense.
4. Nonetheless, herein defendants reserve their right to file a Supplemental/Amended
Answerinduetime

WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,itisrespectfullyprayedthattheinstantCautionary
Answer with Manifestation be admitted and herein defendants given a twenty (20)day period
[11]
withinwhichtofileaSupplemental/AmendedAnswer.

On July 24, 2003, the trial court dismissed the complaint due to petitioners failure to
prosecuteforanunreasonablelengthoftime.Thecourtnotedthatdespitethelapseoftimesince
respondentsfiledacautionaryanswer,petitionersfailedtofileamotiontosetthecaseforpretrial,
which under Section 1, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is petitioners duty as
[12]
[13]
plaintiffs.
ThetrialcourtdeniedpetitionersMotionforReconsiderationofthesaidorder.

[14]
[15]
OnJune29,2007,theCAaffirmedthedismissalofthecase.
CitingOlavev.Mistas,
theCAstressedthatitisplaintiffsdutytopromptlysetthecaseforpretrial,andthatfailuretodo
somayresultinthedismissalofthecase.AccordingtotheCA,petitionersshouldnothavewaited
forasupplementalansweroranorderbythetrialcourtanddonenothingformorethan11months
fromthereceiptofthelastpleading.

[16]
TheCAalsodeniedpetitionersmotionforreconsiderationofthesaiddecision
hence,
thispetition.

PetitionersassignthefollowingerrorstotheCA:

A. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN APPLYING THE

RULINGOFTHESUPREMECOURTINOLAVEvs.MISTAS[TOTHE]CASE.

B. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT

THECASEWASNOTYETRIPEFORPRETRIAL.

C. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE

APPEALBASEDONSECTION3,RULE17OFTHERULESOFCOURT.

D.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT TAKING

COGNIZANCE OF SECTION 1.2 OF A.M. NO. 03109SC, IN EFFECT SINCE AUGUST
[17]
16,2004.

Onthegroundsofequity,dueprocessandfairplay,petitionersurgetheCourttosetaside
technicalitiesandtoallowthecasetoproceedandberesolvedonthemerits.They,likewise,point
[18]
outthat,inaccordancewiththeCourtspronouncementinOlavev.Mistas,
dismissaloftheir
case is not warranted since no substantial prejudice was caused to respondents, and strong and
compellingreasonsjustifyaliberalapplicationoftherule.Theyexplainthatthereasonwhythey
didnotmovetosetthecaseforpretrialwasthatthecasewasnotyetripeforit.Theypointout
that the trial court had not yet resolved respondents motion for extension to file a supplemental
answer and respondents had not yet filed their supplemental answer. Petitioners stress that the
delaywas,therefore,notduetotheirinactionhence,thedismissaloftheircasewasnotjustified.

Further, petitioners citeA.M. No. 03109SC (Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court

Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of PreTrial and Use of DepositionDiscovery
Measures)whichallegedlyprovidesthatitisnotsolelythedutyoftheplaintifftosetthecasefor
pretrialastheClerkofCourtislikewisedirectedtoissuethenoticeofpretrialshouldtheplaintiff
failtodoso.

Thepetitionhasnomerit.

Ineveryaction,theplaintiffsaredutyboundtoprosecutetheircasewithutmostdiligence
andwithreasonabledispatchtoenablethemtoobtainthereliefprayedforand,atthesametime,to
[19]
minimizethecloggingofthecourtdockets.
Parallel to this is the defendants right to have a
speedydispositionofthecasefiledagainstthem,essentially,topreventtheirdefensesfrombeing
impaired.

SincetheincidentsoccurredpriortotheeffectivityofA.M.No.03109SConAugust16,
2004, the guidelines stated therein should not be made applicable to this case. Instead, the
prevailingruleandjurisprudenceatthattimeshouldbeutilizedinresolvingthecase.

Section1ofRule18oftheRulesofCourtimposesupontheplaintiffthedutytosetthecase
for pretrial after the last pleading is served and filed. Under Section 3 of Rule 17, failure to
complywiththesaiddutymakesthecasesusceptibletodismissalforfailuretoprosecuteforan
unreasonablelengthoftimeorfailuretocomplywiththerules.

RespondentsLazarofiledtheCautionaryAnswerwithManifestationandMotiontoFilea
Supplemental/AmendedAnsweronJuly19,2002,acopyofwhichwasreceivedbypetitionerson
August5,2002.Believingthatthependingmotionhadtoberesolvedfirst,petitionerswaitedfor
thecourttoactonthemotiontofileasupplementalanswer.Despitethelapseofalmostoneyear,
petitionerskeptonwaiting,withoutdoinganythingtostirthecourtintoaction.

Inanycase,petitionersshouldnothavewaitedforthecourttoactonthemotiontofilea
supplementalanswerorforthedefendantstofileasupplementalanswer.Aspreviouslystated,the
ruleclearlystatesthatthecasemustbesetforpretrialafterthelastpleadingisservedandfiled.
Sincerespondentsalreadyfiledacautionaryanswerand[petitionersdidnotfileanyreplytoit]the
casewasalreadyripeforpretrial.

Itbearsstressingthatthesanctionofdismissalmaybeimposedevenabsentanyallegation
and proof of the plaintiffs lack of interest to prosecute the action, or of any prejudice to the
[20]
defendantresultingfromthefailureoftheplaintifftocomplywiththerules.
Thefailureofthe
plaintiff to prosecute the action without any justifiable cause within a reasonable period of time
willgiverisetothepresumptionthatheisnolongerinterestedinobtainingthereliefprayedfor.
[21]

Inthiscase,therewasnojustifiablereasonforpetitionersfailuretofileamotiontosetthe
case for pretrial. Petitioners stubborn insistence that the case was not yet ripe for pretrial is
erroneous. Although petitioners state that there are strong and compelling reasons justifying a
liberalapplicationoftherule,theCourtfindsnoneinthiscase.Theburdentoshowthatthereare
compellingreasonsthatwouldmakeadismissalofthecaseunjustifiedisonpetitioners,andthey
havenotadducedanysuchcompellingreason.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIEDDUECOURSE.TheCourtofAppealsDecision
datedJune29,2007andResolutiondatedDecember19,2007areAFFIRMED.

SOORDERED.

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice

RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewas
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,
I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeHakimS.Abdulwahid,withAssociateJusticesRodrigoV.CosicoandArturoG.Tayag,concurringrollo,
pp.3543.
[2]
Rollo,pp.5159
[3]
Id.at196.
[4]
Id.at6179.
[5]
Id.at8185.
[6]
Id.at107115.
[7]
Id.at123141.
[8]
Id.at150160.
[9]
Id.at162172.
[10]
Id.at206.
[11]
Id.at207.
[12]
Id.at248249.
[13]
Id.at251252.
[14]
Id.at41.
[15]
G.R.No.155193,November26,2004,444SCRA479.
[16]
Rollo,pp.4445.
[17]
Id.at22.
[18]
Supranote15.
[19]
Olavev.Mistas,id.at493.
[20]
Id.
[21]
Id.at494.