Plaintiff’s Duty to Prosecute: Pre-Trial Setting Not Solely the Court’s Burden

In Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Spouses Genuino (G.R. No. 208792, July 22, 2015), the Supreme Court settled an important question in civil procedure: does the issuance of the guidelines on pre-trial—which direct the branch clerk of court to issue a notice of pre-trial if the plaintiff fails to move for one—relieve the plaintiff of the duty to prosecute the case diligently? The Court answered no.

The ruling is a reminder that procedural rules are designed to ensure the speedy disposition of cases, and plaintiffs cannot simply rely on the court or its personnel to move their cases forward.

The Case: A Foreclosure Deficiency Claim

The Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) filed a complaint for sum of money against Spouses Roberto and Teresita Genuino for a deficiency arising from a foreclosed real estate mortgage. The spouses filed their Answer on November 25, 2009, and BPI received a copy on December 2, 2009. BPI opted not to file a Reply.

Under Rule 18, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, the plaintiff must promptly move ex parte to set the case for pre-trial after the last pleading has been served and filed. BPI, however, did not file such a motion.

On May 17, 2010, the Regional Trial Court of Makati dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of interest to prosecute under Rule 17, Section 3 of the Rules of Court. BPI moved for reconsideration, explaining that the case folder had been misplaced in the office bodega by a previous counsel’s secretary who had already left the firm. The trial court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Issue: Who Sets the Case for Pre-Trial?

BPI argued that with the effectivity of the pre-trial guidelines on August 16, 2004, dismissal for failure to file a motion to set the case for pre-trial was no longer proper. Under those guidelines, if the plaintiff fails to file the motion within five days from the filing of the reply, the branch clerk of court shall issue a notice of pre-trial. BPI contended that the burden had shifted entirely to the clerk of court.

The Supreme Court disagreed. It held that the pre-trial guidelines must be read together with Rule 17, Section 3 and Rule 18, Section 1 of the Rules of Court.

The Ruling: Duty Remains with the Plaintiff

The Court ruled that nowhere in the pre-trial guidelines does it remove the plaintiff’s duty under Rule 18, Section 1 to set the case for pre-trial. Neither does it repeal Rule 17, Section 3, which allows dismissal due to the plaintiff’s fault, nor does it impose a sole burden on the trial court to set the case.

The Court explained that the guidelines aim to abbreviate proceedings and decongest court dockets, but they do not relieve the plaintiff of the duty to diligently prosecute the case. If the plaintiff fails to show justifiable cause for not setting the case for pre-trial, the complaint may be dismissed outright.

In this case, BPI’s explanation—that its previous counsel’s secretary misfiled the case folder in the office bodega—was not a justifiable cause. The Court noted that counsel is required to inquire, from time to time, about the status of handled cases. As one of the oldest and most established banks in the country, BPI was reasonably expected to have organizational structures to meet litigation deadlines.

The Court also rejected BPI’s reliance on Espiritu v. Lazaro, which clarified that the pre-trial guidelines apply to cases filed after their effectivity. That case did not hold that the plaintiff’s duty to prosecute was abolished.

Practical Takeaways

• Plaintiffs must move for pre-trial. Under Rule 18, Section 1, the plaintiff must promptly move ex parte to set the case for pre-trial after the last pleading is served and filed. This duty remains even with the pre-trial guidelines.
• The clerk of court’s duty is not a substitute. While the branch clerk of court must issue a notice of pre-trial if the plaintiff fails to move, this does not relieve the plaintiff of the duty to prosecute diligently.
• Failure without justifiable cause warrants dismissal. Under Rule 17, Section 3, a complaint may be dismissed for failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time or failure to comply with the rules.
• Counsel must monitor case status. A counsel is required to inquire about the status of handled cases and motions filed for a client. Misfiling by staff is not a justifiable cause for delay.
• Dismissal may be without prejudice. The trial court may declare the dismissal without prejudice, but this is discretionary. In some cases, dismissal may operate as an adjudication on the merits.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.