Source: http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56289
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:30:06+00:00

Document:
LBL INDUSTRIES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. CITY OF LAPU-LAPU, RESPONDENT.
On January 25, 2006, respondent City of Lapu-Lapu (respondent) filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court seeking to expropriate, among others, a 300-square meter portion of Lot No. 4839 for its road opening project from Saac II to Bag-ong Silingan, Mactan, Lapu-Lapu City. Later, or on February 19, 2006, the complaint was amended, captioned as "Second Amended Complaint," increasing the area sought to be appropriated to 2,750 sq.m.
"RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolved, to authorize ELSIE TAN MARIÑO [Mariño], an officer of the corporation, to commence any action for and in behalf of the corporation as she may deem fit and necessary to do any and all acts that may be essential in the prosecution and defense of the cases of the corporation[,] more particularly involving and in connection with the Eminent Domain case filed by the City of Lapu-Lapu[,] including the execution/signing and verification of the Answer of other necessary pleadings[,] and do such other acts necessary and proper in connection therewith."
Meantime, the RTC issued two Orders, dated July 10, 2006 and March 28, 2007, directing the issuance of a writ of possession. The branch clerk of court, however, failed to comply with any of the orders.
RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolved, to authorize Mr. Roberto Z. Sison [Sison] or Ms. Elsie T. Mariño, to commence any action and. or represent the corporation as he/she may deem fit and necessary and to do any and all acts that may be essential in the prosecution and defense of the cases of the corporation more particularly involving the Complaint for Eminent Domain filed with the RTC of Lapu-Lapu City, any proceedings for just compensation for its lots in Lapu-Lapu City including the execution/signing and verification of the necessary documents and do such other acts necessary and proper in connection therewith.
As regards the absence of a board resolution, the CA held that "the Petition is subject to dismissal if a certification was submitted unaccompanied by proof of the signatory's authority." Petitioner, thus, moved for reconsideration, offering explanations for the defects cited by the CA including the absence of the board resolution.
[WHETHER THE CA] SERIOUSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE CASE BASED ON A TECHNICALITY WHEN PETITIONER HAS SUBSTANTIALLY RAISED VALID GROUNDS TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE TRIAL COURT DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE FOR FAILURE OF THE RESPONDENT TO PROSECUTE THE CASE FOR AN UNREASONABLE LENGTH OF TIME.
Accompanying the Petition is a copy of the April 8, 2011 Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of petitioner authorizing Sison to represent petitioner in the expropriation case.
This is not to say, however, that the petition before the CA is meritorious. Taking into consideration the length of dormancy of Civil Case No. 653 8-L and a review of the developments in said case convinces Us that the issue of whether the denial of petitioner's Motion to Dismiss by the RTC is proper, which issue the CA has yet to resolve, should be resolved in respondent's favor. The Court likewise finds it apt to settle said issue once and for all instead of directing the appellate court to proceed with CA-G.R. SP. No. 05877 in order to avert further delays in its resolution. Thus, for practical reasons and in the greater interest of justice, the Court shall now address the issue of whether the RTC erred in denying petitioner's motion to dismiss.
Sec. 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 pre-trial.
Sec. 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. - If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails x x x to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, x x x the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion x x x.
Sec. 1, 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. With this in mind, We have, in several cases, ruled that the plaintiffs omission to promptly move that the case be set for pre-trial is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint due to his fault, particularly for failing to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 17.
Respondent cannot be faulted for the alleged delay not only because of the pendency of the resolution of said Motion and because of petitioner's failure to strictly comply with the three-day notice rule, but also because the branch clerk of court failed to comply with the July 10, 2006 and March 28, 2007 directives of the RTC that a writ of possession be issued.
Del Castillo,* Abad, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
* Acting member per Special Order No. 1541 (Revised) dated September 9. 2013.
 Docketed as Civil Case No. 6538-L before the RTC, Branch 27 in Lapu-Lapu City, entitled City of Lapu-Lapu v. Sps. Lhullier, et al.
 Id. at 32-34. Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarirrtbs and Gabriel T. Ingles.
 Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, 404 Phil. 981 (2001); Cebu Metro Pharmacy, Inc. v. Euro-Med Laboratories Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 164757, October 18, 2010, 633 SCRA 320; Mediserv, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 161368, April 5, 2010, 617 SCRA 284.
 496 Phil. 467, 475 (2005).
 Olave v. Mistas, G.R. No. 155193, November 26, 2004, 444 SCRA 479; Samson v. Fiel-Macaraig, G.R. No. 166356, February 2, 2010, 611 SCRA 345; New Japan Motors, Inc. v. Pemcho, 165 Phil. 636 (1976).
 Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.