[G.R. NO.

155193 : November 26, 2004]

OLAVE v.  MISTAS

FACTS:

On May 23, 1996, respondents filed a Complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Lipa City, Branch 12, against petitioners for the nullification of the "Affidavit of
Adjudication By The Heirs of the Estate of Deceased Persons With Sale" dated
December 15, 1995 over a parcel of land with an area of 27,509 square meters, located
in San Benito, Lipa.

The respondents alleged that they were the owners of the said property; that petitioners
sold the same to co-petitioners; the vendees then filed a petition for the issuance of a
new owner's duplicate of OCT.

Respondents opposed the petition, alleging that they were co-owners of the property,
and prayed that the resolution of the petition be held in abeyance until after the final
adjudication of the ownership of the property.

The petitioners thereafter filed their Answer with Counterclaim for damages and prayed
that judgment be rendered in their favor.

The respondents received a copy of the said Answer and opted not to file any reply.
However, they failed to file any motion to set the case for pre-trial as mandated by
Section 1, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court.

Unable to wait any longer, the petitioners filed a motion to require the respondents to
show cause, in writing, why their complaint should not be dismissed with prejudice for
their failure to move that the court set the case for pre-trial as mandated by Section 1,
Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, as amended.

In their compliance, the respondents averred that Section 1, Rule 18 of the Rules of
Court does not provide that the failure to comply with the said provision would result in
the dismissal of the amended complaint with prejudice. They asserted that the Supreme
Court has not ruled on the precise period of time envisaged in paragraph 1, Rule 18 of
the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:

Whether the respondents failed to comply with Section 1, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court.

RULING:

YES.
In this case, we agree with the trial court that there was an appreciable interregnum of
time from the time the respondents filed their motion to set the case for pre-trial to the
time they received a copy of petitioners' Answer to the amended complaint. Since the
respondents opted not to file any reply to the petitioners' Answer, the respondents had
to promptly file their motion to set the case for pre-trial as mandated by Rule 18, Section
1 of the Rules of Court. The respondents failed to do so. The respondents' pretext for
their failure to promptly move for a pre-trial hearing, namely, heavy pressure work of
their counsel consisting in the preparation and filing of pleadings in other courts and
daily court appearances, is not only self-serving but also flimsy. In fact, the respondents'
counsel even failed to specify the cases in which he had to appear in court.
Parenthetically, a lawyer should arrange his court appearances and adopt a system that
takes into account the pleadings to be filed within the period therefor. His failure to do
so constitutes negligence.17 Even if a practicing lawyer has to make daily court
appearances, he can very well prepare a simple ex parte motion in a few minutes and
have it filed by his clerk-messenger without much ado. Thus, the respondents must bear
the consequence of their counsel's negligence.

Instead of justifying their failure to promptly file their motion, they merely alleged in their
opposition that the delay was only for a short period of time and that they failed to file
their motion much earlier because of the heavy pressure of work of their counsel; and,
in the same breath, the respondents even ascribed ill-motives on the petitioners by
alleging that, in filing their motion to dismiss the complaint in case of the respondents'
failure to justify their delay in moving for pre-trial, the petitioners resorted to
technicalities to prevent the case from being tried because they had no defense to their
action.

Indeed, while there was no intention on the part of the respondents and their counsel to
deliberately or intentionally refuse to comply with the Rules of Court precisely to delay
the early disposition of the case in the trial court, we are convinced that because of the
incompetence and negligence of the respondents and their counsel, the proceedings in
the court a quo was unduly prolonged, to the prejudice of the petitioners.