G.R. No. L-5137. April 27, 1954

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the following order of the Court of First Instance of Manila:

“When this case was called for trial this morning,
plaintiffs’ counsel moved to postpone the trial of the case on the
ground that his important witness could nowhere be found, which motion
the Court denied, for the reason that this case has been pending since
the year 1947, and the setting of the same on the calendar was made by
the Court motu proprio. In view thereof, plaintiffs submitted
the case for decision. The defendants, on the other land, moved for the
dismissal of this case.

“Finding the said motion well-founded, the Court orders, that this case be, as it is hereby, dismissed.

“SO ORDERED.

“Manila, Philippines, August 21, 1951.”

The appellants filed a complaint on September 1, 1947, in the Court
of First Instance of Manila, to reefer from either or both of the
defendants-appellees the sum of P3,097.34, with legal interest and
costs, it being alleged that this amount was paid by them under an
insurance policy to a consignee of goods shipped from New York City to
Manila on the “Dña. Aniceta”, a boat owned and operated by appellee De
la Rama Steamship Co,, and lost in the custody of either of the two
appellees. The appellees filed their respective answers, after which
nothing was done until July 26, 1951, or almost four years later, when
the appellants filed an amended complaint. After the appellees had
answered, the court, motu proprio, set the hearing of the case for
August 21, 1951. At this hearing, the appellants moved for a
postponement on the ground that an important witness could not be found
and, upon denial, merely submitted the case without presenting any
evidence. Upon motion of the appellees, the court issued the order of
dismissal hereinbefore quoted.

The lower court obviously dismissed the case,—and correctly—in
conformity with section 3, Rule 30, of the Rules of Court, for lack of
prosecution on the part of the appellants. They never moved for trial,
and filed an amended complaint only after the lapse of some four years,
during which they had had ample time to prepare their witnesses or
secure their depositions. Appellants’ argument that the trial court had
already tolerated the expiration of four years and could have easily
continued the case for another short period of two months, is based on
the assumption that the court was not yet lenient enough in not
dismissing the case sooner. Moreover, the appellants are not shown to
have presented any affidavit indicating the materiality of the evidence
expected to be obtained, or to have exercised due diligence to procure
it, in conformity with section 5 of Rule 31.

As the appellants submitted the case without any evidence in support
of their claim, dismissal logically followed from the denial of the
motion for postponement.

The order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellants. So ordered.

Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.