Title
Alto Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Caluntad
Case
G.R. No. L-26402
Decision Date
May 31, 1979
Appeal dismissed due to four-year delay; Supreme Court upheld Rule 40, Section 9, deeming dismissal justified to prevent dilatory tactics.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-26402)

Facts:

  1. Case Background: In 1962, defendant Angel Al. Caluntad appealed a decision of the City Court of Manila to the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch I, where it was docketed as Civil Case No. 51331.
  2. Order of Dismissal: On May 4, 1966, the Court of First Instance issued an order dismissing the appeal due to the case's unreasonable delay, citing Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court. The case was remanded to the City Court for execution of its judgment.
  3. Motion for Reconsideration: Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the dismissal would work injustice against him, as it denied him his right to a day in court. The Court denied the motion, stating that allowing such inaction would enable defendants to avoid liability indefinitely.
  4. Appeal to the Supreme Court: Defendant appealed the dismissal orders to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Applicability of Rule 40, Section 9: The Court clarified that while Rule 17, Section 3 (failure to prosecute) applies to plaintiffs, Rule 40, Section 9 governs appeals and allows the dismissal of an appeal for failure to prosecute.
  2. Jurisprudential Support: The Court cited precedents, such as Rosa Gonzales Vda. de Palanca v. Chua Keng Kian and Philippine National Bank v. Pineda, which upheld the dismissal of appeals for unreasonable delays.
  3. Unreasonable Delay: The case had been pending for four years without action from the defendant-appellant, causing prejudice to the plaintiff-appellee. The Court emphasized that allowing such delays would undermine the judicial process.
  4. Dilatory Tactics: The Court viewed the appeal as a dilatory tactic and assessed double costs against the appellant to deter frivolous appeals.

Concurring Opinion

Justice Antonio concurred, reiterating that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the appeal. He cited Racimo v. Dino and other cases to affirm that the principles under Rule 17, Section 3 are applicable to appeals under Rule 40, Section 9. He also emphasized that the burden of proving abuse of discretion lies with the appellant, which was not met in this case.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.