Philippine Charter Insurance Corp., PetitionerversusExplorer Maritime Co., Ltd., Owner of the Vessel M/VExplorer, WallemPhils. Shipping, Inc., Asian Terminals, Inc. and Foremost International Port Services, Inc., RespondentsG.R. No. 175409 Sep. 07, 2011

Leonardo De Castro, J.:

Facts:On March 22, 1995, petitioner Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation (PCIC) filed with the RTC of Manila a Complaint against Explorer Maritime Co., Ltd., et al. The complaint sought to recover from the respondents the sum of P342,605.50, allegedly representing the value of lost or damaged shipment paid to the insured, interest and attorneys fees. On the same date, PCIC filed a complaint against Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc., Asian Terminals, Inc., and Foremost International Port Services, Inc., but in this instance, the fourth defendant is the unknown owner of the vessel M/V Taygetus.Answers and reply were respectively filed and the case was set for pre-trial conference by an ex parte motion of PCIC. However, before the scheduled date of the pre-trial conference, PCIC filedits Amended Complaint and the Unknown Owner of the vessel M/V Explorer and Asian Terminals, Inc. filed anew their respective answers with counterclaims. A motion to dismiss the complaint was filed by Foremost International Port Services but was denied.The Unknown Owner of the vessel M/V Explorer and Asian Terminals, Inc. filed also the motion to dismiss on the ground that PCIC failed to prosecute its action for an unreasonable length of time which was opposed by the latter claiming that the trial court has not yet acted on its Motion to Disclose which it purportedly filed where it prayed for the trial court to order respondent Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. to disclose the true identity and whereabouts of defendant Unknown Owner of the Vessel M/V Explorer.The trial court dismissed the case, stating that PCIC failed to prosecute its action for an unreasonable length of time. PCIC then moved for reconsideration upon knowing that its Motion to Disclose was mistakenly filed with another branch instead in Branch 37 where the present case was pending. However, the trial court denied its motion for reconsideration.PCIC, through its new counsel, appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the RTC and later, denied the motion for reconsideration of PCIC involving the same issue.Feeling aggrieved, PCIC then filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari. The Supreme Court later on required the counsel for the Unknown Owner of said vessels to submit proof of identity.

Issue/s:Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the complaint of PCIC on the ground that it failed to prosecute its action for an unreasonable length of time.

Ruling:According to the Supreme Court, respondent Explorer Maritime Co., Ltd., which was then referred to as the Unknown Owner of the vessel M/V Explorer, had already been properly impleaded pursuant to Section 14, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. The Rule states:Section 14. Unknown identity or name of defendant Whenever 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.As all the parties have been properly impleaded, the resolution of the Motion to Disclose was unnecessary for the purpose of setting the case for pre-trial.Hence, the Petition is of PCIC is DENIED and the Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.