G.R. Nos. L-5325-26. January 19, 1955

This is an appeal from the orders of dismissal of the two above entitled
cases for failure of the plaintiffs-appellants to prosecute them under section
3, Rule 30.

In case G. R. No. L-5325, and in case G. R. No. L-5326,the
defendants-appellees filed their answers in May and June, 1947, respectively,
and the two cases were ready for trial in those months. The
plaintiffs-appellants did not do anything until August, 1951, a period of four
years, to have the cases tried by the Court of First Instance of Manila. In view
of this delay of four years, the court below was constrained to order the
dismissal of the two above mentioned cases. The appellants put up the excuse
that there were five hundred similar cases which had to be distributed before
the different branches of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and that was
the reason why they did not ask for the trial of those two cases as they were
waiting for the distribution of those other cases. This is not a valid excuse;
it was the duty of the plaintiffs-appellants to see to it that the two cases
were set for trial. It is true that the deputy clerk of court concerned should
have set for trial, motu proprio, those two cases under sections 1, 2,
and 3 of Rule 31. But it has been held by this Court in the cases of “Smith Bell
& Co., Ltd., and Insurance Company of North America, et al. vs.
American President Lines Ltd., and/or Manila Terminal Co., Inc., et al., G.R.
Nos. L-5304 to L-5324″, that the said duty of the deputy clerk of court does not
relieve the plaintiff from his obligation to have his case set for trial. Four
years is quite a long time, and if the plaintiffs-appellants were really
interested in their cases, we cannot imagine how they left a quadrennial pass
with crossed-arms and without doing anything. It is a well known policy of the
courts to expedite the disposal of cases and to prevent the clogging of the
dockets. It is incumbent upon the parties, especially the plaintiffs, to take
the initiative in the prompt disposal of their cases as a duty to themselves, to
the courts, and to the public in general. In the performance of this duty the
plaintiffs-appellants have failed for an excessive length of time without
exerting ordinary or even special efforts to have their cases disposed of. It
was only a few days before they received notice of orders of dismissal that they
became aware and attempted to have them set for hearing. It is the duty and
right of the courts to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute it with due
diligence. Due diligence has been lacking on the part of the
plaintiffs-appellants. This court can correct the order of dismissal of the
court below only in case of abuse of power or discretion. In view of the
circumstances of these cases, we cannot attribute such abuse to the trial court.
The present cases are almost exactly on-all-fours with the cases above
cited.

In view of the foregoing, the orders of dismissal appealed from are affirmed,
with costs against the appellants.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Concepcion, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.