Below is a broad overview of the key legal principles, procedural rules, jurisprudence, and practical considerations under Philippine law concerning a case that has been pending since 2012 with no hearing. This discussion focuses on rights, remedies, and doctrinal guidance from the Supreme Court of the Philippines. It is intended purely for general legal information, not as legal advice.

1. Constitutional Rights Implicated

a. Right to a Speedy Disposition of Cases

Article III, Section 16 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states: “All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.”
This right applies to all cases—whether criminal, civil, or administrative—and involves the prompt resolution or hearing of a matter, free from unreasonable delays.

b. Right to Speedy Trial (for Criminal Cases)

Article III, Section 14(2) of the Constitution provides for the right of an accused to a speedy trial.
Republic Act No. 8493 (Speedy Trial Act of 1998) and the Revised Guidelines on Continuous Trial (as promulgated by the Supreme Court) further detail timelines and mechanisms to avoid undue delay in criminal proceedings.

When a case has lingered on the court’s docket since 2012 with no hearing, these constitutional principles become directly relevant. If the case is criminal in nature, the accused can invoke the right to a speedy trial. Regardless of whether it is criminal or civil, a prolonged non-hearing may also be challenged under the right to a speedy disposition of cases.

2. Potential Causes of Delay

a. Court Congestion and Docket Backlog

Many Philippine courts face congestion and are saddled with a heavy docket, causing delays.
Vacancies in judicial positions, changes in judges, and the sheer volume of cases can all lead to prolonged inactivity.

b. Procedural or Administrative Delays

Delays can also arise from incomplete or improper service of summons, difficulties in locating parties or witnesses, and repeated requests for resets or postponements by the parties or their counsel.
In criminal cases, a delay in the availability of the prosecutor or in the presentation of witnesses may stall the proceedings.

c. Failure to Pursue Action

In some instances, the plaintiff or complainant may fail to diligently prosecute the case, resulting in prolonged inactivity.
Similarly, defendants may raise dilatory motions or fail to appear, contributing to the delay in starting or continuing hearings.

3. Legal Remedies and Options

a. Motion to Dismiss (for Violation of Speedy Disposition or Speedy Trial)

An accused (in a criminal case) or a respondent (in an administrative or quasi-judicial setting) can file a Motion to Dismiss or a Motion to Quash on the ground that the delay violates the constitutional right to speedy trial or speedy disposition.
For civil litigants, a motion to dismiss on grounds of inordinate delay or laches is sometimes pursued, though it is less common as a standalone ground compared to criminal cases.

b. Petition for Mandamus

A party may seek a writ of mandamus before a higher court (usually the Court of Appeals or, in extraordinary cases, the Supreme Court) to compel a lower court or quasi-judicial body to act upon a long-pending matter.
Mandamus is appropriate if there is a clear legal duty to resolve or decide a case and an unlawful neglect to perform that duty.

c. Administrative Complaint against Erring Judges or Prosecutors

If the delay is attributable to the inaction or neglect of a judge or prosecutor, a party may file an administrative complaint before the:
- Supreme Court (for judges),
- Office of the Court Administrator (for lower court judges), or
- Department of Justice (for prosecutors).
These remedies, however, focus on discipline and accountability and do not automatically resolve the pending case.

d. Filing a Manifestation or Motion for Early Resolution

Often, the first practical step is to file a Manifestation or Motion to Set Case for Hearing/Motion for Early Resolution to alert the court that the case has been long dormant.
This is simpler procedurally and signals a desire to proceed or obtain a disposition.

4. Factors Considered in Determining “Inordinate” or “Unreasonable” Delay

The Supreme Court of the Philippines examines these main factors when determining whether a delay constitutes a violation of one’s right to a speedy trial or speedy disposition:

Length of Delay
- The longer the delay, the heavier the burden on the prosecution or the complainant to justify it.
Reasons for the Delay
- Justifiable reasons (e.g., force majeure, illness of key witnesses, or an extraordinary court backlog) are weighed against the duty to act promptly.
Assertion or Failure to Assert the Right
- Courts consider whether the accused or party filed motions or took steps to expedite proceedings, or whether they acquiesced to the delay.
Prejudice Caused by the Delay
- Prejudice can be shown if the accused, respondent, or litigant has suffered through anxiety, limitation of liberty, lost evidence, or has otherwise been disadvantaged in the case.

Relevant Supreme Court rulings (e.g., Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, Sereno v. People, and others) highlight the balancing test used in assessing a possible violation of the right to speedy disposition.

5. Consequences of Inordinate Delay

a. Dismissal of the Case

In criminal proceedings, a court may dismiss the charge upon a finding of inordinate delay that violates the constitutional right to speedy trial. This dismissal generally bars the refiling of the same criminal charge due to double jeopardy considerations (if the dismissal is on the merits or is tantamount to an acquittal).

b. Continuation with Strict Timelines

A court may also order the case to proceed with strict compliance to a set hearing schedule if it finds delay but not one so severe as to warrant outright dismissal.
The Supreme Court has directed lower courts to adopt “continuous trial” guidelines to avoid further delay once the issue is brought to light.

c. Administrative Sanctions

If an investigation reveals that a judge, prosecutor, or court personnel caused unnecessary delays through negligence or malice, they may face disciplinary actions.

6. Practical Steps for Litigants

Consult Legal Counsel Promptly
- A lawyer can assess the specific reasons for the delay and formulate the most appropriate remedy (e.g., motion to dismiss, mandamus, or manifestation).
Motion for Early Resolution or Motion to Set the Case for Hearing
- This prods the court to calendared proceedings. Once a court order is issued, the litigants have a firmer date to continue with trial or hearing.
Keep Diligent Records
- Document every communication, filing, and order received to show that you (or your counsel) have not contributed to the delay.
Explore Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- In some civil cases, parties may opt for mediation or arbitration to avoid protracted court proceedings.

7. Illustrative Jurisprudence

Cagang v. Sandiganbayan (2018)
- The Supreme Court clarified the guidelines for determining if a right to speedy disposition has been violated, reiterating a fact-specific “balancing test.”
Almeda v. Court of Appeals
- Emphasized the responsibility of courts to ensure timely proceedings and explained the need for the petitioner/accused to assert the right promptly.
Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan
- Demonstrated how persistent delays, especially attributable to the prosecution or the court, can result in the dismissal of charges.

These cases underscore that a remedy often hinges on how convincingly a party demonstrates the length of delay, reasons for the delay, and resulting prejudice.

8. Conclusion

A case pending since 2012 with no hearing in the Philippines triggers significant constitutional concerns regarding the right to a speedy trial and/or speedy disposition of cases. Parties involved should consider:

Asserting the Right: Through motions, manifestations, or petitions for extraordinary writs (e.g., mandamus).
Examining the Causes of Delay: Whether court congestion, negligence, or parties’ tactics are responsible.
Invoking Appropriate Remedies: Ranging from a Motion to Dismiss to administrative or disciplinary complaints if necessary.

Ultimately, the viability of a dismissal or other relief rests on a close examination of the particular circumstances. If you are directly involved in such a case, it is essential to consult a qualified Philippine lawyer to determine the best strategy and remedy, given that actual proceedings can be deeply influenced by details unique to the case and to the specific court.

Disclaimer: This information is for general educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For tailored guidance on any specific case, consult a licensed attorney in the Philippines.