TITLE: Espiritu vs.

Lazaro
CITATION: G.R. No. 181020. November 25, 2009.
TOPIC: Rule 18, Sec. 1 – When Conducted

Facts:
Petitioners Espiritu, et al. filed a complaint for recovery of personal property with damages and
preliminary attachment against respondents Lazaro, et al.

On July 19, 2002, respondents Lazaro filed a Cautionary Answer with Manifestation and a Motion to File
a Supplemental/Amended Answer. On August 5, 2002, petitioners received a copy of the cautionary
answer.

Decision of the trial court:

On July 24, 2003, the trial court dismissed the complaint due to petitioners’ failure to prosecute for an
unreasonable length of time. The court noted that despite the lapse of time since respondents filed a
cautionary answer, petitioners failed to file a motion to set the case for pre-trial, which under Section 1,
Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure is petitioners’ duty as plaintiffs. The trial court denied petitioners’ Motion for
Reconsideration of the said order.

Decision of the CA:

CA affirmed the dismissal of the case

Petitioners explained that the reason why they did not move to set the case for pre-trial was that the case
was not yet ripe for it. They point out that the trial court had not yet resolved respondents’ motion for
extension to file a supplemental answer and respondents had not yet filed their supplemental answer.
Petitioners stress that the delay was, therefore, not due to their inaction; hence, the dismissal of their
case was not justified.

Issue:
Whether or not the instant case is dismissible on the ground of the plaintiff’s failure to set the case for
pre-trial

Ruling:
Yes.

In every action, the plaintiffs are duty-bound to prosecute their case with utmost diligence and with
reasonable dispatch to enable them to obtain the relief prayed for and, at the same time, to minimize the
clogging of the court dockets. Parallel to this is the defendants’ right to have a speedy disposition of the
case filed against them, essentially, to prevent their defenses from being impaired.

Since the incidents occurred prior to the effectivity of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC on August 16, 2004, the
guidelines stated therein should not be made applicable to this case. Instead, the prevailing rule and
jurisprudence at that time should be utilized in resolving the case. 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.
In any case, petitioners should not have waited for the court to act on the motion to file a supplemental
answer or for the defendants to file a supplemental answer. As previously stated, the rule clearly states
that the case must be set for pre-trial after the last pleading is served and filed. Since respondents already
filed a cautionary answer and [petitioners did not file any reply to it] the case was already ripe for pre-
trial.