PHILIPPINE CHARTER  

G.R. No. 175409
INSURANCE CORPORATION,  
Petitioner, Present:
   
- versus - CORONA, C.J.,
  Chairperson,
EXPLORER MARITIME CO., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
LTD., OWNER OF THE BERSAMIN,
VESSEL M/V EXPLORER, DEL CASTILLO, and
WALLEM PHILS. SHIPPING, VILLARAMA, JR., JJ.
INC., ASIAN TERMINALS, INC.  
AND FOREMOST Promulgated:
INTERNATIONAL PORT  
SERVICES, INC., September 7, 2011
Respondents.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-x
 
 
DECISION
 
 
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.
 
xxxx
 
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.
 
 
 
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
 
 
 
WE CONCUR:
 
 
 
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
 
 
 
 
 
 
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
   
   
   
   
   
   
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
 
 
 
CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify

[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.