Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation v Explorer Maritime Co, Owner of the

Vessel MV “Explorer”, Wallem Phils Shipping Inc., Asian Terminals, Inc And Foremost
International Port Services Inc

Date: Sept 7 2011

Ponente: J Leonardo-De Castro
Nature: Petition for Review on Certiorari of a decision of CA

Buod: Nag file si PCIC pero di niya alam sino owner ng MV explorer pero alam niya
kungs sino agent, si Wallem. Inaantay niya yung motion to disclose bago siya
magpretrial conference pero sabi ng Court di na kailangan ng motion to disclose
kasi properly impleaded na yung unkown owner ng barko under the ROC

Note: From my understanding of the case, it seems that ex-parte motion to set for
pre-trial is only in Br 37 and no such motion in Br 38

Facts:
 Mar 22, 1995 Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation (PCIC), as insurer-
subrogee, filed with RTC of Manila a Complaint against R
o The unkown owner of a the vessel MV “explorer” (common carrier)
o Wallem Philippines Shipping Inc (ship agent)
o Asian Terminals Inc. (arrastre)
o Foremost International Port Service Inc (broker)
 PCIC sought to recover from R the sum of 342,605.50 allegedly representing
the value of lost or damaged shipment paid to the insured, interest and atty
fees( RTC MANILA BR 37)
 On the same date, PCIC filed a similar case against Wallem Philippines
Shipping Inc, Asian Terminals Inc and Foremost International Port Service Inc
but this time, the 4th defendant is the unknown owner of the vess MV
TAYGETUS (RTC Manila BR 38)
 R filed their respective answers with counterclaims before Br 37
 PCIC filed its answer to the counterclaims
 Sept 18-1995 – PCIC filed an ex-parte motion to set the case for pretrial
conference and which the court granted (Br 37)
 Before the scheduled date of the pretrial, PCIC filed its amended complaint
 The “unknown owner” of the vessel MV “Explorer” and Asian Terminals filed
their respective answers and counterclaims
 Foremost International Port Services filed a motion to dismiss
o Denied (1996)
 Dec 2000 – The unkown owner of the vessel MV Explorer and Wallem
Philippines Shipping filed a moion to dismiss on the ground that PCIC failed to
prosecute its action for an unreasonable length of time (Br 38)
 PCIC filed its opposition claiming that the TC has not yet acted on its motion
to disclose to order Wallem Philippines Shipping Inc to disclose the identity
and whereabouts of defendant “unkwon owner of the Vessel MV explorer”
 TC issued an order dismissing the case for failure to prosecute for
unreasonable amount of time
 PCIC realized that the motion to disclose was inadvertently filed with Branch
38 of the RTC Manila, where the case involve the vessel MV Taygetus
 o Thus, PCIC filed a MR explaining its motion to disclose was erroneously
filed before Br 38
o The confusion was created by an error of the docket section of the RTC
of Manila in stamping the same docket number to the simultaneously
filed cases
o According to PCIC it believed that setting for pretrial with motion to
disclose pending resolution was still premature
 RTC denied MR
 CA Affirmed
 Hence this petition before SC
 June 27 2007 – Court required the counsel of the “unknown owner” of the
vessel MV Explorer and Wallem Philippines Shipping Inc. to submit proof of
identification of the owner of said vessel.
 On Sept 17 2007 – SC directed its Division Clerk of Court to change “unknown
owner” of the vessel to “Explorer Maritime Co” in the title of this case

Issue: WON there was failure to prosecute on the part of PCIC when it was waiting
for a resolution on its motion to disclose (YES)

Held:
 CA ruled that PCIC should have filed a motion to resolve the Motion to
Disclose after a reasonable time from its alleged erroneous filing
o PCIC could have followed up the status by making inquiries instead of
waiting 3 years
o Counsel of PCIC filed a pre-trial brief with Branch 37 which was
supposed to be for Br 38
 Should bear the consequence of counsel’s negligence and
inaction
o Basis of TC was sec 3 Rule 17 and Sec1 Rule 18
“Section 3. Dismissal due to the fault of the plaintiff.—If, for no
justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the
presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to
prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to
comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint
may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the
court’s own motion, without prejudice to the right of the
defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a
separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of
adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the
court.

Section 1. When conducted.—After the last pleading has been

served and filed, it shall be the duty of the plaintiff to promptly
move ex parte that the case be set for pre­trial.”

 Espiritu v Lozaro
o The sanction of dismissal may be imposed even absent any allegation and
proof of the plaintiff’s lack of interest to prosecute the action, or of any
 prejudice to the defendant resulting from the failure of the plaintiff to
comply with the rules, The failure of the plaintiff to prosecute the action
without any justifiable cause within a reasonable period of time will give
rise to the presumption that he is no longer interested in obtaining the
relief prayed for
o The burden to show that there are compelling reasons that would make a
dismissal of the case unjustified is on P
o As Applied to the case
 Motion to disclose – Nov 19 1997
 R filed the motion to dismiss Dec 5 2000
 3 years of inaction for PCIC = failure to prosecute for an
unreasonable length of time
 Consequently, the complaint may be dismissed even absent
any allegation and proof of the plaintiff’s lack of interest to
prosecute the action, or of any prejudice to the defendant
resulting from the failure of the plaintiff to comply with the
rules
 The burden is now on PCIC to show that there are compelling
reasons that would render the dismissal of the case unjustified
 The argument that it was waiting for the resolution of motion
to disclose before filing for the setting of the pre-trial
conference is erroneous as it is not a bar from moving the
case for pretrial
 Pertinent to the syllabus topic
o P were alleging that it was premature for setting of pretrial conference
before the resolution of the motion to disclose
o However, SC ruled that Respondent Explorer Maritime Co was already
impleaded pursuant to Sec 14 Rule 3 of ROC
 “Section 14. Unknown identity or name of defendant.—When- ever
the identity or name of a defendant is unknown, he may be sued as
the unknown owner, heir, devisee, or by such other designation as
the case may require; when his identity or true name is discovered,
the pleading must be amended accordingly.”
o The amended complaint of PCIC alleged that “Unkown Owner of the
vessel MV Explorer is a foreign corporation whose identity or name or
office address are unkown to PCIC but is doing business in the PH through
its local agent, co defendant Wallem Philippines Shipping Inc (domestic
corporation)
o PCIC then added that both defendants may be served with summons
and other court processes in the address of Wallem Philippines Shipping
Inc which was correct
 “Sec. 12. Service upon foreign private juridical entity.—When the
defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has transacted
business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident
agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if
there be no such agent, on the government official designated by
 law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the
Philippines.”
o Thus, all the parties have been properly impleaded and motion to disclose
was unnecessary
o Furthermore, Rule 3 Sec 3 provides
 An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an
undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joning the
principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the
principal
o Assuming P filed its Motion to Disclose with the proper court, its pendency
did not bar PCIC from moving for the setting of the case for pre trial as
required under Rule 18 sec 1 of ROC
 Not related to the topic
o Evidence presented to prove error on motion to disclose was a
photocopy with the RTC which wa highly suspicious
o Docket section and stamp were also correctly written Br 37. It did not
bother to attach the alleged complaint filed in Br 38 involving MV
Taygetus
o Failed to adequately account how its counsel could have mistakenly filed
the motion intended for Br 37 in Br 38
o Such circumstance can only have occurred if BOTH PCIC AND COUNSEL
were uninterested and laxed in prosecuting the case
 DISPOSITIVE DENIED