Statutory Construction Case Digest

Maurin, Nino Jay M. Don Tino Realty and Development Corp. v Julian Florentino 314 SCRA 19, Septem!er 1", 1999 Fa#t$%  This appeal seeks to set set aside the the decision of the Court of Appeals Appeals in CA-G.R. CA-G.R. SP No. 4516 !hich ordered the ad"ission of a late and defecti#e ans!er in an e$ect"ent case. %efore this case !as &ein' (led) alle'ed the follo!in'* Petitioner +on Tino (led a'ainst responder ,lorentino an e$ect"ent suit. +on Tinio alle'ed that he is the o!ner and in peaceful possession of a parcel of land co#ered &  TCT No. No. 4. % "eans of stealth) stealth) force) force) and strate') strate') respondent respondent ,lorentino ,lorentino occupied the said parcel of land and &uilt his house thereon. ,allin' !ithin the pro#isions of the Re#ised Rule on Su""ar Procedure) su""ons !ere ser#ed upon respondent on ,e&ruar 1) 1//0 reuirin' hi" to ans!er !ithin ten 213 das fro" receipt thereof. n ,e&ruar 4) 1//0) respondent (led his ans!er throu'h Roel G. Al#ear) president of the Sa"ahan' a'kakapit&aha n' R%) San 7uan) %ala'tas) %ulacan. The ans!er is not #eri(ed. The trial court set the case for preli"inar conference conference on April 1) 1//0. 8o!e#er) +on Tino (led a "otion for rendition of $ud'"ent and "otion to cancel the preli"inar conference on the 'round that the ans!er of respondent !as defecti#e and (led out of ti"e.  The trial court court 'ranted the the "otion (led & petitioner. petitioner. 9t declared declared that respondent respondent failed to co"pl !ith Section  2& and Section 5 of the Re#ised Rule on Su""ar Procedure. 9t also noted that Roel G. Al#ear has no authorit to represent the respondent as there is no special po!er of attorne e:ecuted in his fa#or. Thus) it cancelled the preli"inar conference and considered the case su&"itted for decision in accordance !ith Section 6 of the said Rules.  Therefore)  Therefore) trial court court rendered rendered $ud'"ent and and ordered ordered the respondent respondent to i""ediatel i""ediatel #acate the pre"ises and deli#er deli#er its possession to +on Tino and pa for )333 pesos for rental for the use of the land fro" arch 5) 1//6 until he #acated the pre"ises. •

•

•

•

•

•

8o!e#er) respondent ,lorentino (led a anifestation !ith otion to ;ift rder throu'h his counsel. 8e alle'ed that his ans!er !as (led late and & a non-la!er &ecause of its econo"icall destitute. 8e asked the trial court to consider &ecause the sa"e as honest "istake and e:cusa&le ne'li'ence.  Thus) the trial trial court ad"itted ad"itted the "otion. &$$ue% uela. Respondent Super'uard (led a otion to +is"iss on the 'round that the co"plaint does not state a #alid cause of action. Super'uard clai"ed that Tor>uelas act of shootin' +ula !as &eond the scope of his duties) and that since the alle'ed act of shootin' !as co""itted !ith deli&erate intent 2dolo) the ci#il lia&ilit therefor is 'o#erned & Article 133 of the Re#ised Penal Code. Super'uard further alle'ed that a co"plaint for da"a'es &ased on ne'li'ence under Article 106 of the Ne! Ci#il Code) such as the one (led & petitioners) cannot lie) since the ci#il lia&ilit under Article 106 applies onl to uasi-oDenses under Article 65 of the Re#ised Penal Code. 9n addition) the respondent ar'ued that petitioners (lin' of the co"plaint is pre"ature considerin' that the con#iction of Tor>uela in a cri"inal case is a condition sine qua non for the e"ploers su&sidiar lia&ilit. Respondent Safe'uard also (led a "otion prain' that it &e e:cluded as defendant on the 'round that defendant Tor>uela is not one of its e"ploees. Petitioners opposed &oth "otions) statin' that their cause of action a'ainst the pri#ate respondents is &ased on their lia&ilit under Article 1=3 of the Ne! Ci#il Code. Respondent $ud'e declared that the co"plaint !as one for da"a'es founded on cri"es punisha&le under Articles 133 and 13 of  the Re#ised Penal Code as distin'uished fro" those arisin' fro") uasi-delict. &$$ue-$% uela s act of shootin' Napoleon +ula constitutes a uasi-delict actiona&le under Article 106 of the Ne! Ci#il Code