A compilation of landmark cases in Torts and Damages for law students and those who have law subjects....
G.R. No. L-22533
February 9, 1967
PLACIDO C. RAMOS a! A"G"S#O L. RAMOS, petitioners, vs. P$PSI-COLA %O##LING CO. OF #&$ P.I. a! ANDR$S %ONIFACIO, respondents.
Placido B. Ramos and Renato L. Ramos for petitioners. Trinidad & Borromeo for respondents. %$NG'ON, (.P. (. P.,, J.:
On June 30, 1958 Placido and Augusto Ramos sued Peps Pepsii-ol olaa !ott !ottli ling ng o. o. o" t#e t#e P.$.1 and Andres Andres !oni"acio in t#e ourt o" %irst $nstance o" &anila as a conse conse'u 'uen ence ce o" a coll collis isio ion, n, on &a( &a( 10, 10, 1958, 1958, involving t#e car o" Placido Ramos and a tractortruc) and trailer o" P*P*+$-OA. +aid car as at t#e time o" t#e collision driven ( Augusto Ramos, son son and and co-p co-pla lain inti ti"" "" o" Plac Placid ido. o. P*P+ P*P+$$-O OA A/s /s tractor-truc) as t#en driven ( its driver and code"endant Andres !oni"acio. A"te A"terr tria triall t#e t#e our ourtt o" %irs %irstt $nst $nstan ance ce rende rendere red d udgment on April 15, 191, "inding !oni"acio negligent and declaring t#at P*P+$-OA #ad not su"" su""ic icie ient ntl( l( prove proved d its its #avi #aving ng e2er e2erci cise sed d t#e t#e due diligence o" a good "at#er o" a "amil( to prevent t#e damage. damage. P*P+$P*P+$-O OA A and !oni"a !oni"acio cio,, solida solidaril ril( (, ere ordered to pa( t#e plainti""s P,38.50 actual damages damages44 P,000.0 P,000.00 0 moral moral damages damages44 P,000.0 P,000.00 0 as e2emplar( damages4 and, P1,000.00 attorne(/s "ees, it# costs. ot satis"ied it# t#is decision, t#e de"endants appellee to t#e ourt o" Appeals. +aid ourt, on Januar( 15, 196, a""irmed t#e trial cour court/ t/ss udg udgme ment nt inso inso"a "arr as it "oun "ound d de"e de"end ndan antt !oni"a !oni"acio cio neglig negligent ent,, ut modi"i modi"ied ed it ( asolv asolving ing de"endant P*P+$-OA "rom liailit(, "inding t#at, contrar( to t#e plainti""s/ contention, P*P+$-OA su""icientl( proved due diligence in t#e selection o" its driver !oni"acio. Plaint Plainti" i""s "s t#ereu t#ereupon pon appeal appealed ed to 7s t#roug t#roug# # t#is t#is petition "or revie o" t#e ourt o" Appeals/ decision. And appellants ould argue e"ore t#is ourt t#at de"enda de"endant nt P*P+$P*P+$-O OA/s A/s evidenc evidencee "ailed "ailed to s#o s#o
t#at it #ad e2ercised due diligence in t#e selection o" its driver in 'uestion. +aid point, as stated, as resolved ( t#e ourt o" Appeals in P*P+$-OA/s "avor, t#us #e uncontradicted testimon( o" Juan . Anasco, personnel manager o" de"endant compan(, as to t#e e""ect t#at de"endant driver as "irst #ired as a memer o" t#e ottle crop in t#e production department4 t#at #en #e as #ired as a driver, /e /e #ad #ad si:e si:e ;sic ;sic195?, 53 O.@. =96, cited in appellee/s rie", our +upreme ourt #ad occasion to put it don as a rule t#at $n order t#at t#e de"endant ma( e considered as #aving e2ercised all t#e diligence o" a good "at#er o" a "amil(, #e s#ould not #ave een satis"ied it# t#e mere possession o" a pro"essional driver/s license4 #e s#ould #ave care"ull( e2amined t#e applicant "or emplo(ment as to #is #is 'ual 'uali" i"ic icat atio ions ns,, #is #is e2pe e2peri rien ence cess and recor ecord d o" serv serviice. ce. !efendant ompany has ta"en all these steps. steps. Appellants #erein see) to assail t#e "oregoing portion o" t#e decision under revie ( ta)ing issue it# t#e testimon( o" Anasco upon #ic# t#e "indings o" due dili diligen gence ce a"or a"ores esta tate ted d are are rest rested ed.. #us #us,, it is no no cont conten ende ded d t#at t#at ABasc Basco o ein eing g P*P+ P*P+$$-O OA A/s /s emplo(ee, is a iased and interested itness4 and t#at #is testimon( is not elievale. $t is rat#er clear, t#ere"ore, t#at appellants ould raise #erein an issue o" "act and crediilit(, crediilit(, somet#ing as to #ic #ic# # t#is t#is our ourtt #as consi consist sten entl tl( ( resp respect ected ed t#e t#e "indin "indings gs o" t#e ourt o" Appeals, Appeals, it# some some "e 3 e2ceptions, #ic# do not otain #erein. +tated di""erentl(, ABascos crediilit( is not "or t#is ourt no to re-e2amine. And said itness #aving
een "ound credile ( t#e ourt o" Appeals, #is testimon(, as accepted ( said ourt, cannot at t#is stage e assailed. As Ce said in o Tao vs. o#rt of $ppeals, -9196, April 5, 195=, assignments o" error involving t#e crediilit( o" itnesses and #ic# in e""ect dispute t#e "indings o" "act o" t#e ourt o" Appeals, cannot e revieed in t#ese proceedings. %or a 'uestion to e one o" la it must involve no e2amination o" t#e proative value o" t#e evidence presented ( t#e litigants or an( o" t#em. 6 And t#e distinction is ell-)non #ere is a 'uestion o" la in a given case #en t#e dout or di""erence arises as to #at t#e la is on a certain state o" "acts4 t#ere is a 'uestion o" "act #en t#e dout or di""erence arises as to t#e trut# or t#e "alse#ood o" alleged "acts.5 %rom all t#is it "ollos t#at "or t#e purposes o" t#is appeal, it must e ta)en as estalis#ed t#at, as testi"ied to ( ABasco, P*P+$-OA did in "act care"ull( e2amine t#e driver-applicant !oni"acio as to #is 'uali"ications, e2periences and record o" service, ta)ing all steps mentioned ( t#e ourt o" Appeals in its decision alread( 'uoted.%wph%.()t +uc# eing t#e case, t#ere can e no dout t#at P*P+$-OA e2ercised t#e re'uired due diligence in t#e selection o" its driver. As ruled ( t#is ourt in ampo vs. amarote53 O.@. =96, =9= $n order t#at t#e de"endant ma( e considered as #aving e2ercised all diligence o" a good "at#er o" a "amil(, #e s#ould not e satis"ied it# t#e mere possession o" a pro"essional driver/s license4 #e s#ould #ave care"ull( e2amined t#e applicant "or emplo(ment as to #is 'uali"ications, #is e2perience and record o" service. $t s#ould per#aps e stated t#at in t#e instant case no 'uestion is raised as to due diligence in t#e supervision ( P*P+$-OA o" its driver. Article 180 o" t#e ivil ode provides inter alia ... #e oners and managers o" an estalis#ment or enterprise are li)eise responsile "or damages caused ( t#eir emplo(ees in t#e service o" t#e ranc#es in #ic# t#e latter are emplo(ed or on t#e occasion o" t#eir "unctions. 222
222
222
#e responsiilit( treated o" in t#is Article s#all cease #en t#e persons #erein mentioned prove t#at t#e( oserved all t#e diligence o" a good "at#er o" a "amil( to prevent damage.
And construing a similar provision o" t#e old ivil ode, t#is ourt said in Bahia vs. Liton*#a, 30 P#il. 6, = %rom t#is article to t#ings are apparent >1? #at #en an inur( is caused ( t#e negligence o" a servant or emplo(ee t#ere instantl( arises a presumption o" la t#at t#ere as negligence on t#e part o" t#e master or emplo(er eit#er in t#e selection o" t#e servant or emplo(ee, or in supervision over #im a"ter t#e selection, or ot#4 and >? t#at t#e presumption is *#ris tant#mand not *#ris et de *#re, and conse'uentl( ma( e reutted. $t "ollos necessaril( t#at i" t#e emplo(er s#os to t#e satis"action o" t#e court t#at in selection and supervision #e #as e2ercised t#e care and diligence o" a good "at#er o" a "amil(, t#e presumption is overcome and #e is relieved "rom liailit(. As pointed out, #at appellants #ere contend as not dul( proved ( P*P+$-OA is onl( due diligence in t#e selection o" its driver. And, parent#eticall(, it is not surprising t#at appellants t#us con"ine t#eir arguments to t#is aspect o" due diligence, since t#e record D as even appellants/ rie" >pp. 13-1=? re"lects in 'uoting in part t#e testimon( o" P*P+$-OA/s itness D ould s#o su""icient evidence to estalis# due diligence in t#e supervision ( P*P+$OA o" its drivers, including !oni"acio. Appellants/ ot#er assignment o" errors are li)eise outside t#e purvie o" t#is ourt/s revieing poer. #us, t#e 'uestion o" #et#er P*P+$- OA violated t#e Revised &otor Ee#icle a and rules and regulations related t#ereto, not #aving een raised and argued in t#e ourt o" Appeals, cannot e ventilated #erein "or t#e "irst time. And t#e matter o" #et#er or not P*P+$-OA did acts to rati"( t#e negligent act o" its driver is a "actual issue not proper #erein. C#ere"ore, t#e decision o" t#e ourt o" Appeals is #ere( a""irmed, it# costs against appellants. +o ordered. oncepcion, .+., Reyes, +.B.L., !ion, Regala, -a"alintal, aldivar, /anche and astro, ++., conc#r. R*+O7$O O &O$O %OR R*O+$F*RA$O
&a( 1, 19= %$NG'ON, (.P., J.:
Petitioners see) a reconsideration1 o" Our decision in t#e instant case a""irming in totot#e c#allenged decision o" t#e ourt o" Appeals asolving respondent P*P+$-OA "rom liailit(. $n Our decision, Ce re"rained "rom passing on t#e merits o" t#e 'uestion #et#er P*P+$-OA, in operating t#e tractor-truc) and trailer, violated t#e Rev. &otor Ee#icle a3 and t#e rules and regulations related t#ereto, "or t#e procedural reason t#at it did not appear to #ave een raised e"ore t#e ourt o" Appeals. $t no appears, #oever, t#at said 'uestion as raised in a motion to reconsider "iled it# t#e ourt o" Appeals #ic# resolved t#e same against petitioners. Fue consideration o" t#e matter on its merits, convinces 7s t#at t#e decision o" t#e ourt o" Appeals s#ould still e a""irmed in toto. Petitioners impute to P*P+$-OA t#e violation o" supars. 1 and 6>d?, par. >a?, +ec. = o" &.E.O. Administrative Order o. 1, dated +ept. 1, 1951, in t#at at t#e time o" t#e collision, t#e trailer-truc), #ic# #ad a total eig#t o" 30,000 )gms., as >a? eing driven at a speed o" aout 30 ).p.#. or e(ond t#e 15 ).p.#. limit set and >? as not e'uipped it# a rear-vision mirror nor provided it# a #elper "or t#e driver. #e cited provisions read +*$O =. Registration, operation, and inspection of tr#c"0trailer com1inations, semi0 trailers, and tractors. >a? o trailer or semi-trailer #aving a gross eig#t o" more t#an ,000 )ilograms and is not e'uipped it# e""ective ra)es on at least to opposite #eels o" t#e rear a2le and are so controlled t#at t#e ra)es ill act in unison it# or preceding t#e e""ective action o" t#e ra)es o" t#e tractor-truc) s#all e registered "or operation on pulic #ig#a(s o" t#e P#ilippines4 provided, t#at t#e trialers it#out ra)es ma( e registered "rom (ear to (ear "or operation under t#e "olloing conditions
1. o suc# trailer s#all e operated at an( time at a speed in e2cess o" 15 )ilometers per #our in conunction it# a tractor-truc), t#e actual gross eig#t o" #ic# is less t#an tice t#e eig#t o" t#e trailer. 222
222
222
6>d? ractor-truc)s s#all e eit#er e'uipped it# rear-vision mirror to enale t#e driver to see ve#icles approac#ing mirror t#e rear or s#all carr( a #elper #o s#all e so stationed on t#e truc) or trailer t#at #e ill constantl( #ave a vie o" t#e rear. Ge s#all e provided it# means o" e""ectivel( signalling to t#e driver to give a( to overta)ing ve#icles. 6>e? o truc) and trailer comination s#all e operated at a speed greater t#an 30 )ilometers per #our. $t ill e noted t#at t#e 15 ).p.#. limit in supar. 1, s#pra, re"ers onl( to trailers or semi-trailers #aving a gross eig#t o" more t#an ,000 )gms., AF #ic# are not e'uipped it# e""ective ra)es on at least to opposite #eels, o" t#e rear a2le and are so controlled t#at t#e ra)es ill act in unison it# or preceding t#e e""ective action o" t#e ra)es o" t#e tractor-truc)... #is is t#e condition set in t#e provisoin par. >a?, s#pra, #erein trailers it#out ;suc#< ra)es ma( e registered "rom (ear to (ear "or operation ... i.e., t#e( s#ould not e operated at an( time at a speed in e2cess o" 15 )ilometers per #our in conunction it# a tractor-truc) .... !ut t#ere as no "inding ( t#e ourt o" Appeals t#at t#e truc)-trailer #ere did not #ave suc# ra)es. $n t#e asence o" suc# "act, it is supar. 6>e?, s#pra, t#at ill appl(. And petitioners admit t#at t#e truc)trailer as eing driven at aout 30 ).p.#. $t is a "act t#at driver !oni"acio as not accompanied ( a #elper on t#e nig#t o" t#e collision since #e as "ound to e driving alone. Goever, t#ere is no "inding t#at t#e tractor-truc) did not #ave a rearvision mirror. o e sure, t#e records disclose t#at Pat. Rodol"o Pa#ate, t#e tra""ic policeman #o ent to t#e collision scene, testi"ied t#at #e sa t#e tractortruc) t#ere ut he does not remem1er i" it #ad an( rear vision mirror.6 #is cannot prove lac) o" rear-vision mirror. And t#e cited provision D supar. 6>d? D is complied i" eit#er o" t#e to alternatives, i.e., #aving
a rear-vision mirror or a #elper, is present. +tated ot#erise, said provision is violated onl( #ere t#ere is a positive "inding t#at t#e tractor-truc) did not #ave ot# rear-vision mirror and a #elper "or t#e driver. Petitioners also c#arge P*P+$-OA it# #aving violated par. >? o" +ec. 8-A o" t#e Rev. &otor Ee#icle a, providing t#at o motor ve#icle operating as a single unit s#all e2ceed t#e "olloing dimensions
an( "inding to t#at e""ect. And it as incument upon petitioners-appellants to #ave proved lac) o" suc# permit since t#e tractor-truc) and t#e trailer ere registered.5 ompliance it# la and regularit( in t#e per"ormance o" o""icial dut( D in t#is case, t#e issuance o" proper registration papers D are presumed and prevail over mere surmises. Gaving c#arged a violation o" la, t#e onus o" sustantiating t#e same "ell upon petitioners-appellants. Gence, t#e conclusion t#at t#ere as a violation o" t#e la lac)s "actual asis.
Overall idt# ................ .5 meters. 222
222
222
since t#ere as an e2press "inding t#at t#e truc)trailer as 3 meters ide. Goever, +ec. 9 >d? o" t#e same la, as amended, providing t#at D +*. 9. /pecial permits, fees for.0The chief of the -otor 2ehicles 3fficeit# t#e approval o" t#e +ecretar( o" Pulic Cor)s and ommunications shall esta1lish reg#lations and a tariff of additional fees #nder which special permits may 1e iss#ed in t#e discretion o" t#e #ie" o" t#e &otor Ee#icles O""ice or #is deputies, for each of the following special cases, and it#out suc# special permit, no suc# motor ve#icles s#all e operated on t#e pulic #ig#a(s. 222
222
222
>d? 4or registration or #se of a motor vehicle exceeding the limit of permissi1le dimensions specified in s#1sections 516 and 5c6 of section eight0$ hereof. >*mp#asis supplied? 222
222
222
e2pressl( allos t#e registration, or use o" motor ve#icles e2ceeding t#e limits o" permissile dimensions speci"ied in susec. >? o" +ec. 8-A. +o, to conclude t#at t#ere as a violation o" la D #ic# undisputal( constitutes negligence, at t#e ver( least D it is not enoug# t#at t#e idt# o" t#e tractor-truc) e2ceed t#e limit in +ec. 8-A4 in addition, it must also appear t#at t#ere as no special permit granted under +ec. 9. 7n"ortunatel( "or petitioners, t#at vital "actual lin) is missing. #ere as no proo" muc# less
Petitioners ould also #ave 7s a1andont#e Bahiaruling.= $n its stead, Ce are urged to appl( t#e Anglo-American doctrine o" respondent s#perior . Ce cannot #oever, aandon t#e !a#ia ruling it#out going against t#e e2plicit mandate o" t#e la. A motor ve#icle oner is not an asolute insurer aga inst all damages caused ( its driver. Article 180 o" our ivil ode is ver( e2plicit t#at t#e oner/s responsiilit( s#all cease once it proves t#at it #as oserved t#e diligence o" a good "at#er o" a "amil( to prevent damage. #e Bahiacase merel( clari"ied #at t#at diligence consists o", namel(, diligence in t#e selection and supervision o" t#e driver-emplo(ee. eit#er could Ce appl( t#e respondent s#perior principle. 7nder Article 180 o" t#e ivil ode, t#e asis o" an emplo(er/s liailit( is #is on negligence, not t#at o" #is emplo(ees. #e "ormer is made responsile "or "ailing to properl( and diligentl( select and supervise #is erring emplo(ees. Ce do not D and #ave never D "olloed t#e respondent superior rule.8 +o, t#e American rulings cited ( petitioners, ased as t#e( are on said doctrine, are not aut#oritative #ere. $n vie o" t#e "oregoing, reconsideration is #ere( denied.
t#e
motion
"or
t#e sum o" P1,=03.=5. Fespite t#e medical e""orts, #oever, &aria eresa uadra completel( lost t#e sig#t o" #er rig#t e(e.
G.R. No. L-2)1*1 Se+eber 3*, 197* MARIA #$R$SA . C"ADRA, /or re+re0ee! by er aer "LIS$S P. C"ADRA, $# AL., plainti""s-appellees, vs. ALFONSO MONFOR#,de"endant-appellant.
Rodolfo +. 7erman for plaintiffs0appellees. uis @. orres and Ara#am *. ion)o "or de"end antappellant.
MAALIN#AL, J.:
#is is an action "or damages ased on 8#asi0delict , decided ( t#e ourt o" %irst $nstance o" egros Occidental "avoral( to t#e plainti""s and appealed ( t#e de"endant to t#e ourt o" Appeals, #ic# certi"ied t#e same to us since t#e "acts are not in issue. &aria eresa uadra, 1, and &aria eresa &on"ort, 13, ere classmates in @rade +i2 at t#e &aini *lementar( +c#ool in !acolod it(. On Jul( 9, 19 t#eir teac#er assigned t#em, toget#er it# t#ree ot#er classmates, to eed t#e grass in t#e sc#ool premises. C#ile t#us engaged &aria eresa &on"ort "ound a plastic #eadand, an ornamental oect commonl( orn ( (oung girls over t#eir #air. Jo)ingl( s#e said aloud t#at s#e #ad "ound an eart#orm and, evidentl( to "rig#ten t#e uadra girl, tossed t#e oect at #er. At t#at precise moment t#e latter turned around to "ace #er "riend, and t#e oect #it #er rig#t e(e. +marting "rom t#e pain, s#e rued t#e inured part and treated it it# some poder. #e ne2t da(, Jul( 10, t#e e(e ecame sollen and it as t#en t#at t#e girl related t#e incident to #er parents, #o t#ereupon too) #er to a doctor "or treatment. +#e underent surgical operation tice, "irst on Jul( 0 and again on August 6, 19, and sta(ed in t#e #ospital "or a total o" tent(-t#ree da(s, "or all o" #ic# t#e parents spent
$n t#e civil suit suse'uentl( instituted ( t#e parents in e#al" o" t#eir minor daug#ter against Al"onso &on"ort, &aria eresa &on"ort/s "at#er, t#e de"endant as ordered to pa( P1,=03.00 as actual damages4 P0,000.00 as moral damages4 and P,000.00 as attorne(/s "ees, plus t#e costs o" t#e suit. #e legal issue posed in t#is appeal is t#e liailit( o" a parent "or an act o" #is minor c#ild #ic# causes damage to anot#er under t#e speci"ic "acts related aove and t#e applicale provisions o" t#e ivil ode, particularl( Articles 1= and 180 t#ereo", #ic# read AR. 1=. C#oever ( act or omission causes damage to anot#er, t#ere eing "ault or negligence, is oliged to pa( "or t#e damage done. +uc# "ault or negligence, i" t#ere is no pre-e2isting contractual relation eteen t#e parties, is called a 8#asi0 delict and is governed ( provisions o" t#is #apter. AR 180. #e oligation imposed ( Article 1= is demandale not onl( "or one/s on acts or omissions, ut also "or t#ose o" persons "or #om one is responsile. #e "at#er and, in case o" #is deat# or incapacit( are responsile "or t#e damages caused ( t#e minor c#ildren #o live in t#eir compan(. 222 222 222 #e responsiilit( treated o" in t#is Article s#all cease #en t#e persons #erein mentioned prove t#at t#e( oserved all t#e diligence o" a good "at#er o" a "amil( to prevent damage. #e underl(ing asis o" t#e liailit( imposed ( Article 1= is t#e "ault or negligence accompan(ing t#e act or t#e omission, t#ere eing no ill"ulness or intent to cause damage t#ere(. C#en t#e act or omission is t#at o" one person "or #om anot#er is
responsile, t#e latter t#en ecomes #imsel" liale under Article 180, in t#e di""erent cases enumerated t#erein, suc# as t#at o" t#e "at#er or t#e mot#er under t#e circumstances aove 'uoted. #e asis o" t#is vicarious, alt#oug# primar(, liailit( is, as in Article 1=, "ault or negligence, #ic# is presumed "rom t#at #ic# accompanied t#e causative act or omission. #e presumption is merel( prima facie and ma( t#ere"ore e reutted. #is is t#e clear and logical in"erence t#at ma( e dran "rom t#e last paragrap# o" Article 180, #ic# states t#at t#e responsiilit( treated o" in t#is Article s#all cease #en t#e persons #erein mentioned prove t#at t#e( oserved all t#e diligence o" a good "at#er o" a "amil( to prevent damage. +ince t#e "act t#us re'uired to e proven is a matter o" de"ense, t#e urden o" proo" necessaril( rests on t#e de"endant. !ut #at is t#e e2act degree o" diligence contemplated, and #o does a parent prove it in connection it# a particular act or omission o" a minor c#ild, especiall( #en it ta)es place in #is asence or outside #is immediate compan(H Oviousl( t#ere can e no meticulousl( calirated measure applicale4 and #en t#e la simpl( re"ers to all t#e diligence o" a good "at#er o" t#e "amil( to prevent damage, it implies a consideration o" t#e attendant circumstances in ever( individual case, to determine #et#er or not ( t#e e2ercise o" suc# diligence t#e damage could #ave een prevented. $n t#e present case t#ere is not#ing "rom #ic# it ma( e in"erred t#at t#e de"endant could #ave prevented t#e damage ( t#e oservance o" due care, or t#at #e as in an( a( remiss in t#e e2ercise o" #is parental aut#orit( in "ailing to "oresee suc# damage, or t#e act #ic# caused it. On t#e contrar(, #is c#ild as at sc#ool, #ere it as #is dut( to send #er and #ere s#e as, as #e #ad t#e rig#t to e2pect #er to e, under t#e care and supervision o" t#e teac#er. And as "ar as t#e act #ic# caused t#e inur( as concerned, it as an innocent pran) not unusual among c#ildren at pla( and #ic# no parent, #oever care"ul, ould #ave an( special reason to anticipate muc# less guard against. or did it reveal an( misc#ievous propensit(, or indeed an( trait in t#e c#ild/s c#aracter #ic# ould re"lect un"avoral( on #er upringing and "or #ic# t#e lame could e attriuted to #er parents. #e victim, no dout, deserves no little commiseration and s(mpat#( "or t#e traged( t#at e"ell #er. !ut i" t#e de"endant is at all oligated to
compensate #er su""ering, t#e oligation #as no legal sanction en"orceale in court, ut onl( t#e moral compulsion o" good conscience. #e decision appealed "rom is reversed, and t#e complaint is dismissed, it#out pronouncement as to costs.
G.R. No. 4*714 (auary 29, 1944 F$LI'A P. D$ RO a! IRGILIO RAMOS, petitioners, vs. CO"R# OF APP$ALS a! L"IS %$RNAL, SR., GL$NIA %$RNAL, L"IS %$RNAL, (R., &$IRS OF MARISSA %$RNAL, aey, GLIC$RIA D$LA CR"' %$RNAL a! L"IS %$RNAL, SR.,respondents. R$SOL"#ION
COR#$S, J.:
#is special civil action "or certiorari see)s to declare null and void to >? resolutions o" t#e +pecial %irst Fivision o" t#e ourt o" Appeals in t#e case o" uis !ernal, +r., et al. v. %elisa Perdosa Fe Ro(, et al.,
[email protected]. E o. 0=8. #e "irst resolution promulgated on 30 +eptemer 198= denied petitioners/ motion "or e2tension o" time to "ile a motion "or reconsideration and directed entr( o" udgment since t#e decision in said case #ad ecome "inal4 and t#e second Resolution dated = Octoer 198= denied petitioners/ motion "or reconsideration "or #aving een "iled out o" time. At t#e outset, t#is ourt could #ave denied t#e petition outrig#t "or not eing veri"ied as re'uired ( Rule 5 section 1 o" t#e Rules o" ourt. Goever, even i" t#e instant petition did not su""er "rom t#is de"ect, t#is ourt, on procedural and sustantive grounds, ould still resolve to den( it. #e "acts o" t#e case are undisputed. #e "ireall o" a
urned-out uilding oned ( petitioners collapsed and destro(ed t#e tailoring s#op occupied ( t#e "amil( o" private respondents, resulting in inuries to private respondents and t#e deat# o" &arissa !ernal, a daug#ter. Private respondents #ad een arned ( petitioners to vacate t#eir s#op in vie o" its pro2imit( to t#e ea)ened all ut t#e "ormer "ailed to do so. On t#e asis o" t#e "oregoing "acts, t#e Regional rial ourt. %irst Judicial Region, !ranc# IIIE$$$, presided ( t#e Gon. Antonio &. !elen, rendered udgment "inding petitioners guilt( o" gross negligence and aarding damages to private respondents. On appeal, t#e decision o" t#e trial court as a""irmed in toto ( t#e ourt o" Appeals in a decision promulgated on August 1=, 198=, a cop( o" #ic# as received ( petitioners on August 5, 198=. On +eptemer 9, 198=, t#e last da( o" t#e "i"teen-da( period to "ile an appeal, petitioners "iled a motion "or e2tension o" time to "ile a motion "or reconsideration, #ic# as eventuall( denied ( t#e appellate court in t#e Resolution o" +eptemer 30, 198=. Petitioners "iled t#eir motion "or reconsideration on +eptemer 6, 198= ut t#is as denied in t#e Resolution o" Octoer =, 198=. #is ourt "inds t#at t#e ourt o" Appeals did not commit a grave ause o" discretion #en it denied petitioners/ motion "or e2tension o" time to "ile a motion "or reconsideration, directed entr( o" udgment and denied t#eir motion "or reconsideration. $t correctl( applied t#e rule laid don in 7a1al#yas 9nterprises, Inc. v. +apon, ;@.R. o. =0895, August 5, 1985,138 +RA 61, t#at t#e "i"teen-da( period "or appealing or "or "iling a motion "or reconsideration cannot e e2tended. $n its Resolution den(ing t#e motion "or reconsideration, promulgated on Jul( 30, 198 >16 +RA 08?, t#is ourt en 1anc restated and clari"ied t#e rule, to it !eginning one mont# a"ter t#e promulgation o" t#is Resolution, t#e rule s#all e strictl( en"orced t#at no motion "or e2tension o" time to "ile a motion "or reconsideration ma( e "iled it# t#e &etropolitan or &unicipal rial ourts, t#e Regional rial ourts, and t#e $ntermediate Appellate ourt. +uc# a motion ma( e "iled onl( in cases pending it# t#e +upreme ourt as t#e court o" last resort, #ic# ma( in its sound discretion eit#er grant or den( t#e e2tension re'uested. >at p. 1? Lacsamana v. /econd /pecial ases !ivision of the intermediate $ppellate o#rt, ;@.R. o. =316-53,
August , 198, 163 +RA 63&7? Gospital #ere #e underent surger( to save #is li"e. On Octoer 5, 19=9, petitioner, assisted ( #is "at#er Pedro Pasco, "iled a complaint "or damages against Adul Karim &adidis and #erein private respondent @regorio Araneta 7niversit( #ic# as doc)eted as ivil ase o. +&-10=. +aid sc#ool as impleaded as a part( de"endant ased on t#e a"orementioned provision o" t#e ivil ode. On Octoer , 19=9, respondent sc#ool "iled a &otion to Fismiss on t#e "olloing grounds a. #e penultimate paragrap# o" Article 180 o" t#e e ivil ode under #ic# it as sued applies onl( to vocational sc#ools and not to academic institutions4
&arcelo . Aniana "or respondents.
PARA+, +.;
#e sole 'uestion o" la raised ( petitioner in t#is case is #et#er t#e provision o" t#e penultimate paragrap# o" Article 180 o" t#e ivil ode #ic#
. #at ever( person criminall( liale "or a "elon( is also civill( liale under Article 100 o" t#e Revised Penal ode. Gence, t#e civil liailit( in t#is case arises "rom a criminal action #ic# t#e de"endant universit( #as not committed4 c. +ince t#is is a civil case, a demand s#ould #ave een made ( t#e plainti"", #ence, it ould e premature to ring an action "or
damages against >Rollo, p. 9?
de"endant
7niversit(.
M$L$NCIO-&$RR$RA, J.,dissenting
$ oin Justice +armiento in #is dissent. On &a( 1, 1980, respondent court issued an Order granting said &otion to Fismiss. Petitioner moved to reconsider t#e Order o" Fismissal ut t#e motion as li)eise denied on t#e ground t#at t#ere is no su""icient usti"ication to distur its ruling. Gence, t#is instant Petition "or certiorari under Repulic Act o. 5660, pra(ing t#at udgment e rendered setting aside t#e 'uestioned order o" &a( 1, 1980 dismissing t#e complaint as against respondent sc#ool and t#e order o" Jul( 1=, 1980 den(ing t#e reconsideration o" t#e 'uestioned order o" dismissal, it# costs against respondent sc#ool. Ce "ind no necessit( o" discussing t#e applicailit( o" t#e Article to educational institutions >#ic# are not sc#ools o" arts and trades? "or t#e issue in t#is petition is actuall( #et#er or not, under t#e article, t#e sc#ool or t#e universit( itsel" >as distinguis#ed "rom t#e teachers or heads? is liale. Ce "ind t#e anser in t#e negative, "or surel( t#e provision concerned spea)s onl( o" teachers or heads. CG*R*%OR*, t#is Petition is F$+&$++*F "or lac) o" merit. +O ORF*R*F. Article 180, ivil ode?. #e sc#ool, #oever, ma( e2culpate itsel" "rom liailit( ( proving t#at it #ad e2ercised t#e diligence o" a good "at#er o" t#e "amil(. -elencio07errera, +., dissent.
+eparate Opinions SARMI$N#O, J.,dissenting
$ dissent. Paragrap# 5 o" Art. 180 ma( e construed as t#e asis "or t#e liailit( o" t#e sc#ool as t#e emplo(er "or t#e "ailure o" its teac#ers or sc#ool #eads to per"orm t#eir mandator( legal duties as sustitute parents. Gerrera, J. concurring >Amadora et al. vs. ourt o" Appeals, et al., @.R. o. -6==65, citing +angco, P#ilippine a on orts L Famages, 19=8 ed., p. 01?. M$L$NCIO-&$RR$RA, J.,dissenting
$ oin Justice +armiento in #is dissent. Se+arae O+//o0
SARMI$N#O, J.,dissenting
$ dissent. Paragrap# 5 o" Art. 180 ma( e construed as t#e asis "or t#e liailit( o" t#e sc#ool as t#e emplo(er "or t#e "ailure o" its teac#ers or sc#ool #eads to per"orm t#eir mandator( legal duties as sustitute parents. Gerrera, J. concurring >Amadora et al. vs. ourt o" Appeals, et al., @.R. o. -6==65, citing +angco, P#ilippine a on orts L Famages, 19=8 ed., p. 01?.
As stated ( #im, m( vie is t#at #ile t#e educational institution is not directl( liale, (et t#e sc#ool, as t#e emplo(er, ma( e #eld liale "or t#e "ailure o" its teac#ers or sc#ool #eads to per"orm t#eir mandator( legal duties as sustitute parents >Article 180, ivil ode?. #e sc#ool, #oever, ma( e2culpate itsel" "rom liailit( ( proving t#at it #ad e2ercised t#e diligence o" a good "at#er o" t#e "amil(.
