Case Digest (G.R. No. 118349)
Facts:
The case revolves around the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC), formerly known as the Construction Development Corporation of the Philippines, which filed a legal action on March 18, 1985, seeking monetary damages against Ronaldo L. Calupitan and Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc. This lawsuit was initiated in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig. On January 4, 1991, the trial court rendered a judgment against both Calupitan and his surety, Stronghold, ordering them to pay PNCC a total of PHP 867,500, which included PHP 317,500 as a down payment in accordance with a Subcontract Agreement dated December 23, 1982, PHP 500,000 as liquidated damages, and an additional PHP 50,000 for attorney's fees and expenses incurred during litigation. The court stipulated that these amounts would accrue interest at a rate of 12% per annum from the time the case was filed until full payment was made. In a cross-claim, Calupitan was instructed to reimburse Stronghold for any paymen
Case Digest (G.R. No. 118349)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- The petitioner, Philippine National Construction Corporation (formerly Construction Development Corporation of the Philippines), filed an action for a sum of money with damages against Ronaldo L. Calupitan and Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc. on March 18, 1985, before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig.
- The petition sought payment of:
- P317,500.00 as the downpayment under the Subcontract Agreement of December 23, 1982;
- P500,000.00 as liquidated damages; and
- P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees and expenses.
- A judgment rendered on January 4, 1991, ordered Calupitan and his surety, Stronghold, to jointly and severally pay these amounts with interest at 12% per annum from the filing of the case until full payment.
- Cross Claim and Subsequent Orders
- In the cross claim, Calupitan was ordered to reimburse Stronghold for amounts paid, including an additional P50,000.00 for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, also subject to 12% interest per annum.
- On February 4, 1991, Stronghold filed a notice of appeal, which was approved by the trial court the very next day, and the records were ordered to be elevated to the Court of Appeals.
- The Issue of Delay in Prosecution
- On June 17, 1994, the petitioner moved for the dismissal of Stronghold's appeal on the ground that, after more than three years, there had been no significant steps taken to prosecute the appeal.
- Petitioner based its motion on previous rulings:
- Estella v. Court of Appeals – holding that gross inaction for more than one year amounts to a failure to prosecute.
- Fagtanac v. Court of Appeals – emphasizing that an appellant must prosecute his appeal with reasonable diligence.
- Stronghold countered that its inaction was due to not receiving notices from the appellate court regarding the payment of the docket fee and subsequent filing of its brief, claiming a state of good faith.
- Actions of the Appellate (Respondent) Court
- On August 15, 1994, the respondent Court of Appeals denied the petitioner's motion to dismiss.
- The court reasoned that the lapse in prosecution was not entirely attributable to the appellant but also due to the duty of the Branch Clerk of Court to duly transmit the records as required under Sec. 1, Rule 4 of the Internal Rules of the Court.
- The court directed the Branch Clerk to transmit the entire records within five days upon receipt of its resolution.
- A motion for reconsideration was filed, which was again denied on November 4, 1994.
- Petitioner's Challenge and Arguments
- The petitioner challenged the resolutions of August 15 and November 4, asserting that:
- The resolutions were issued with or without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion.
- The appeal should have been dismissed based on established jurisprudence regarding the appellant’s duty to prosecute.
- The petitioner contended that reliance solely on the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals was misplaced as such rules must yield to settled jurisprudence which mandates prompt prosecution of appeals.
Issues:
- Whether the delay in prosecuting the appeal by Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc. constitutes a valid ground for dismissal due to failure to prosecute the appeal with reasonable diligence.
- Is the inaction of the appellant excusable solely on the basis of alleged procedural omissions from the clerk of the lower court?
- Does the timely duty of the appellant to prompt the transmission of records and subsequent proceedings override delays allegedly attributable to the clerk's inaction?
- Whether the denial of the petitioner's motion to dismiss Stronghold’s appeal by the respondent Court of Appeals amounted to grave abuse of discretion.
- Was the application of the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals by the respondent court sufficient to countermand the established jurisprudence favoring dismissal for failure to prosecute?
- Should the appellant’s failure to act despite the availability of pertinent jurisprudence be considered a form of complacency that justifies dismissal?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)