Montejo vs. Urotia G.R. No. L-27187 (July 22, 1971) (CASE DIGEST)

Facts

The Supreme Court decided nine cases involving appeals from orders of dismissal for failure to prosecute.

In G.R. No. L-27187 (Montejo), the plaintiffs filed a complaint in July 1962. In September 1963, the trial court ordered the plaintiffs to exert efforts to cause summons to be served upon 17 unsummoned defendants. Over two years later, in October 1965, the court dismissed the case because the plaintiffs failed to comply with the court’s order. The plaintiffs-appellants argued that the duty to serve summons devolved upon the clerk of court, not the plaintiffs.

In other jointly decided cases, actions were dismissed due to various instances of prolonged inaction, lack of diligence, or failure to appear:

• In one case (L-30711), the plaintiff took no steps to prosecute their appeal for about two and a half years, justifying the inaction by claiming they were waiting for the clerk of the court of first instance to issue a notice of pre-trial.
• In another case (L-29098), the appellant’s counsel failed to appear at the pre-trial, arguing that his motion for postponement, filed due to a conflicting trial, was denied only after the scheduled date.

Issues

1. Did the trial courts commit a patent abuse of discretion in dismissing the actions or appeals for the plaintiffs’/appellants’ failure to prosecute the same for an unreasonable length of time or for failure to comply with court orders?
2. Does the plaintiff’s duty to prosecute a case diligently cease when the Rules of Court impose corresponding duties upon the clerk of court (e.g., serving summons or setting a trial date)?

Ruling

“WHEREFORE, the orders appealed from in each one of these nine (9) cases are hereby affirmed, with costs against the respective appellants, except appellant in L-30711, which is the Government. IT IS SO ORDERED.”

Essential Elements of Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissals, reinforcing the following legal principles regarding the failure to prosecute:

1. Nature of Dismissal Power: The dismissal of an action pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 17 (formerly Section 3 of Rule 30) rests upon the sound discretion of the court.
2. Standard of Review: The trial court’s sound discretion in determining what constitutes an “unreasonable length of time” will not be disturbed in the absence of patent abuse.
3. Burden of Proof: The burden of showing abuse of judicial discretion is upon the appellant, as every presumption is in favor of the correctness of the court’s action.
4. Plaintiff’s Duty of Diligence: The duty imposed upon the clerk of court (such as fixing the trial date, causing notices, or ensuring service of summons) does not relieve the plaintiff of his own duty to prosecute the case diligently.
5. Remedy for Clerk Negligence: If the clerk is negligent, it is the plaintiff’s duty to call the court’s attention to that fact so that the administration of justice is not delayed. A plaintiff cannot rely on the clerk’s non-performance as an excuse for their own failure to prosecute.
6. Unreasonable Length of Time: This depends upon the circumstances of each particular case. Inaction for over five years, three years, or even periods less than three months may justify dismissal.
7. Effect of Dismissal: A dismissal for failure to prosecute generally has the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise provided by the court (Rule 17, Section 3).

Sample Q&A

Question: A plaintiff, whose collection case appeal has been pending for two years in the Court of First Instance, argues against the court’s recent order of dismissal, citing Rule 17, Section 3. The plaintiff claims that the delay was due entirely to the clerk of court’s failure to calendar the case and issue the mandatory notice for pre-trial. Should the dismissal be sustained? Explain your answer, citing the relevant rule and controlling doctrine.

Answer: Yes, the dismissal should be sustained.

The dismissal falls squarely under Rule 17, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, which allows an action to be dismissed upon the court’s own motion if the plaintiff fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time or fails to comply with any order of the court.

The controlling doctrine established by the Supreme Court is that the duty imposed upon the clerk of court (to calendar cases or issue notices) does not relieve the plaintiff of his own duty to prosecute the case diligently. The plaintiff’s waiting for the clerk to issue a notice, rather than taking steps to call the court’s attention to the delay, constitutes a failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time. Since the power of dismissal rests on the sound discretion of the court, and the plaintiff bears the burden of proving patent abuse of that discretion, the two-year inaction justifies the dismissal to ensure the efficient administration of justice.

---

MontejoVsUrotia #GRL27187 #FailureToProsecute #CivilProcedure #Rule17 #RemedialLaw #DismissalOfActions #LegalDiligence #ProceduralLaw #PHJurisprudence #SupremeCourtPHPhilippineLaw #LawStudentPH #BarReviewPH #LegalEducationPH #FutureLawyerPH #PhilippineBarExams #LawSchoolPhilippines #HernandoBar #BarNiJLo #LegalProfessionPH #PinoyLawyerLegalUpdates #CaseDigest #LawyerLife #StudyGram #KnowledgeIsPower #LegalNews #DailyGrind #SmartReading #LawyersOfFacebook #ProfessionalDevelopment #ReviewerMode