Vallacar Transit, Inc. v. Jocelyn Catubig

VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC. V. JOCELYN CATUBIG DOCTRINE: • The requirement on verification of a p leading is a formal, not a jurisdictional, requisite o The party need NOT sign the verification; a party’s representative, layer, layer, or any person who personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading may sign the verification o hen circumstances warrant, the court may simply order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on it and waive strict compliance with the rules in order that the ends of justice may there!y !e served EMERGENCY RECIT:

• "a!anilla, employee, was driving a !us owned !y #allacar Transit, Transit, when it collided with a motorcycle driven !y $uintin "atu!ig, who had another passenger riding in tandem with him, killing "atu!ig and the other passenger  • "atu!ig was in the process of overtaking a cargo truck in front of h im, in a curve in the highway, when it collided with the !us driven !y "a!anilla • "atu!ig’s widow, %ocelyn, %ocelyn, filed a complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in dou!le homicide with the &"T", which was dismissed !ecause the court found no negligence on "a!anilla’s part • %ocelyn filed a complaint for damages with the 'T", which was dismissed for lack of merit, since the 'T" also found that "a!anilla was not negligent • %ocelyn appealed to the "(, which found that #allacar was equally responsi!le for the negligence of its driver, "a!anilla, "a!anilla, and ordered it to pay damages to "atu!ig’s heirs • #allacar #allacar filed a petition for review with the )", contending that %ocelyn’s complaint for damages with the 'T" should have !een dismissed outright for her failure to verify the complaint • )" found that there was no reason to outrightly dismiss %ocelyn’s complaint since it is not a pleading required !y law or rules to !e verified* (lso, verification is only a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement • )" also found #allacar #allacar not lia!le for any d amages since its driver, "a!anilla, was not guilty of any negligence* On the contrary, it was "atu!ig who was negligent in overtaking a truck while approaching a curve in the road FACTS: • #allacar Transit Transit +#allacar +#allacar is in the !usiness of transportation and is the franchise owner of a "eres -ulilit !us • $uirino "a!anilla +"a!anilla is employed as a regular !us driver of #allacar  • %ocelyn’s +respondent hus!and, $uintin "atu!ig +"atu!ig, was on his way home from .umaguete, driving a motorcycle with an employee of his, Teddy Teddy /mperado +/mperado, riding in tandem with him • hile approaching a curve, $uintin tried to overtake a slow0moving ten0wheeler cargo truck !y crossing over to the opposite lane, which was !eing traversed !y the "eres -ulilit !us, driven !y "a!anilla • hen the two vehicles collided, "atu!ig and /mperado were thrown from the motorcycle o "atu!ig died on the spot while /mperado died while he was !eing rushed to the hospital • "a!anilla was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in dou!le homicide !efore the &"T" of &anjuyod0-indoy0(yungon, &anjuyod0-indoy0(yungon, Negros Oriental o (fter preliminary investigation, &"T" dismissed the criminal charge, finding that "a!anilla was not criminally lia!le for the deaths of "atu!ig and /mperado !ecause there was n o negligence, not even contri!utory, contri!utory, on "a!anilla’s part • %ocelyn filed a complaint for damages !efore the 'T", seeking actual, moral and e1emplary damages amounting to 2343,555 for the death of her hus!and, !ased on (rt* 6745, in relation to (rt* 6789, of the "ivil "ode +she said that #allacar should !e civilly lia!le vicariously !ecause their employee was reckless and negligent in driving the !us which collided with "atu!ig’s motorcycle o #allacar’s #allacar’s defense, in its answer with counterclaim, was that the pro1imate cause of the collision was the sole negligence of "atu!ig when he overtook the cargo truck at a curve, traversing the opposite lane o Vallacar also asked or !"e d#s$#ssal o !"e co$%la#&! or &o! 'e#&( )er##ed and:or failure to state a cause of action, as there was no a llegation that #allacar #allacar was negligent in the selection or supervision of its employee driver 

o 'T" dismissed the complaint, finding preponderance of evidence in favor of favor of #allacar, that "atu!ig was the reckless and imprudent driver, and not "a!anilla* #allacar’s #allacar’s counterclaim was dismissed for lack of merit • %ocelyn appealed to the "(, which modified the 'T" decision and found !oth drivers to have !een negligent* (ccording (ccording to the "(, "atu!ig was negligent in overtaking a truck at a curve, while "a!anilla was running the !us at a high speed of 755 kmh* "( also !rushed aside the defense of #allacar that it e1ercised the degree of diligence required !y law in the conduct of its !usiness o "( held #allacar #allacar equally lia!le in the accident, awarding 265,555 to the heirs of "atu!ig as full compensation for his death o #allacar’s &' was denied • #allacar #allacar filed a petition for review with the )", )" , asser!#&( !"a! Jocel*&+s co$%la#&! or da$a(es s"old 'e d#s$#ssed or "er a#lre !o )er#* !"e sa$e and denying and vicarious lia!ility through the alleged negligence of their employee, "a!anilla ISSUE: • ON %ocelyn’s complaint for damages should !e dismissed for failure to verify the complaint • ON #allacar is vicariously lia!le for the death of "atu!ig -ELDRATIO: 7* NO. SC "eld !"a! #! #&ds &o %rocedral deec! !"a! /old /arra&! !"e o!r#("! d#s$#ssal o Jocel*&+s co$%la#&! • This is !ecause %ocelyn filed her complaint for damages in 7