G.R. No. 181020 November 25, 2009
FACTS:
On Aug. 2002, petitioners received a copy of the cautionary answer. On July 2003, the trial court dismissed the complaint due to petitioners’ failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time. CA affirmed the dismissal of the case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court's dismissal of the case is proper.
RULING:
Yes. Section 1 of Rule 18 of the Rules of Court imposes upon the plaintiff the duty to set the case for pre-trial after the last pleading is served and filed. Under Section 3 of Rule 17, failure to comply with the said duty makes the case susceptible to dismissal for failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time or failure to comply with the rules.
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.