This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2000-10-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Although Section 1, Rule 14[10] of the Rules, imposes upon the clerk of court the duty to serve summons, this does not relieve the plaintiff of his own duty to prosecute the case diligently. If the clerk had been negligent, it was plaintiff's duty to call the court's attention to that fact. The non-performance of that duty by plaintiff is an express ground for dismissing an action. If there were no means of summoning any of the defendants, plaintiffs should have so informed the court and moved for their exclusion from the complaint, within a reasonable period of time, so that the case could be disposed of one way or another and the administration of justice would not suffer delay. Plaintiffs should have asked that the defendants be summoned by publication at the earliest possible time.[11] In this case, it was not petitioner who called the court's attention that summons had not been served on the other defendants, it was private respondent Kho who did. The bank was aware, as early as June 7, 1989, after the first order to serve summonses was issued, the summonses could not be served on the three other defendants. It was already aware then that the corporation was already dissolved and Lan Shing Chin and Shin May Wan were reportedly in Hongkong. It took more than one year, before the bank acted and applied for service of summons by publication. | |||||