1 Torts and Damages | Atty.

Marianne Beltran-Angeles

[G.R. NO. 172238, September 17, 2008] negligence and recklessness of a third party, the driver of a Philippine
Rabbit bus.6
MA. LIZA FRANCO-CRUZ, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS,
VICTORY LINER, INC., MARITES M. GANELO, CATHERINE C. Petitioner and her counsel failed to appear during the pre-trial scheduled
SANTOS, AND MA. THERESA Q. FABIAN, Respondents. on June 5, 1998 despite due notice thereof, albeit her counsel filed on
even date an urgent motion to postpone. The motion was denied,
DECISION however, and petitioner was declared "as in default" [sic]. Respondents at
once started presenting evidence ex-parte.7
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
On June 23, 1998, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration8 of
the June 5, 1998 order declaring her "as in default," alleging that, inter
On January 4, 1998, a Franco Transit bus bearing license plate number alia, she had meritorious defenses that included her not being the real
AVC 228 collided with the rear portions of a bus and truck wrecker both party-in-interest as she is not the registered owner of the Franco Transit
owned by respondent Victory Liner, Inc. (Victory Liner) which were bus9 but Felicisima R. Franco, in support of which she attached a
stalled "along kilometer 63, North Expressway, San Felipe, San Certificate of Registration issued on October 28, 1988 in the name of
Fernando, Pampanga." The collision damaged both vehicles of Victory Felicisima R. Franco.10
Liner and killed Manuel Fabian, Rodel Ganelo, Caesar Santos, and
Michael Figueroa. The driver of the Franco Transit bus likewise died in Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the trial court by
the accident. Order11 of July 20, 1998 in this wise:
Indeed, a cursory examination of the instant motion will readily show
On February 11, 1998, Victory Liner and respondents Marites M. Ganelo, that it was filed in patent violation of the provision of the rules.
Catherine C. Santos, and Ma. Theresa Q. Fabian (Ma. Theresa) - the
surviving spouses of Rodel Ganelo, Caesar Santos, and Manuel Fabian, While the movant alleged that [she] has a meritorious defense which
respectively - filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City would justify the granting of [her] motion, [she] nevertheless failed to
a complaint (Civil Case No. C-18212),1 for damages against Maria2 Liza submit an Affidavit of Merit. Worst, the motion was not even
Franco-Cruz (petitioner), alleged to be "the registered owner and operator verified.12 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
of public transportation utilities and whose bus is known as and by the
name of FRANCO TRANSIT and which she has been operating prior to Petitioner thereafter filed an Omnibus Motion13 alleging that it was error
January 4, 1998"3 to declare her "as in default" for the declaration "as in default" of a
defendant who fails to attend pre-trial had been eliminated in
Respondents claimed that petitioner failed to exercise the diligence of a the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. She thus prayed that she be allowed to
good father of a family in the selection and supervision of the driver of the participate in the proceedings and to present evidence on her
Franco Transit bus.4 affirmative defenses. The Omnibus Motion was denied for failure of
petitioner's counsel to appear at the hearing thereon.14
In her Answer,5 Petitioner, after denying the material allegations of the
Complaint, alleged as among her Affirmative Defenses that she is not the After respondents rested their case, Branch 121 of the Caloocan City
real party-in-interest and, therefore, the complaint stated no cause of RTC, by Decision15 dated March 30, 1999, found that, inter alia, the
action against her, hence, must be dismissed; that the owner and the negligence of the driver of the Franco Transit bus resulted in the accident
management of the bus involved in the case have always exercised the which "the defendant [-herein petitioner] failed to rebut" and that,
due diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision moreover, "the defendant [-herein petitioner] totally failed to present
of their employees; and that the proximate cause of the collision was the evidence to overthrow the presumption of negligence against
Andrei Da Jose | Page 1|5
2 Torts and Damages | Atty. Marianne Beltran-Angeles

her pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code"16 It thus rendered On petitioner's appeal,23 the Court of Appeals, by Decision24 of September
judgment in favor of respondents, disposing as follows: 22, 2005, dismissed the same after noting that her motion for
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered reconsideration of the trial court's decision was filed only on the 18 th day
against MARIA LIZA FRANCO-CRUZ, operator of FRANCO TRANSIT, following receipt by her counsel of a copy of the decision. The appellate
ordering her: court thus held that the trial court's decision had become final and
executory.25
1) To pay P50,000.00 each by way of actual damages and lost income to
plaintiffs Marites M. Ganelo, Catherine C. Santos and Ma. Theresa Q. Her Motion for Reconsideration26 of the appellate court's Decision having
Fabian; been denied,27 petitioner filed the present Petition for Certiorari.28

2) To pay moral damages to the above-named plaintiffs in the amount of One of the requirements for certiorari to lie is that there is no appeal, or
P100,000.00; any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law.29 Any judgment which finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing
3) To pay actual damages in the amount of P515,631.00 to plaintiff more for the court to do in respect thereto - such as the judgment of the
Victory Liner, Inc., and lost income in the amount of P50,000.00; Court of Appeals dismissing petitioner's appeal as she had lost the right
thereto - is appealable.30 Petitioner's remedy is, therefore, appeal,
4) To pay attorney's fees of P50,000.00 and the costs of the suit. not certiorari .

SO ORDERED.17 As a general rule, the requirements for perfecting an appeal within the
reglementary period specified in law must be strictly followed,31 appeal
Respondent Ma. Theresa filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration and
Clarification.18 Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration19of the trial not being a constitutional right but a mere statutory privilege. 32 The
court's decision reiterating her plea that she is not the real party-in- perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by
law is thus not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional. 33
interest against whom the action should be brought, she again submitting
the Certification of Registration of the bus in the name of Felicisima R.
Petitioner argues, however, that:
Franco, together with an Official Receipt of payment as Annex "A" to the
The ruling of the respondent Court of Appeals contained in its questioned
motion.
Decision dated March 30, 1999 that the Petitioner had lost her right to
By Order20 dated June 25, 1999, the trial court denied Ma. Theresa's appeal is a patent nullity. What the respondent Court of Appeals missed
is the fact that before the period to appeal or file a Motion for
partial motion for reconsideration but clarified that the attorney's fees
Reconsideration expire[d], respondent Ma. Theresa Q. Fabian filed a
"should be divided according to the following proportion: three-fourths
Partial Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of the lower court
(3/4) for Atty. Atilano Huaben B. Lim who represented three of the
plaintiffs and one-fourth (1/4) for Atty. Roberto A. Unciano who dated March 30, 1999, which motion asserted that the lower court erred
represented plaintiff Ma. Theresa Q. Fabian"21 in not awarding indemnity for the death of each victims [sic] to the
plaintiffs and that it failed to clarify the award of attorney's fees of
P50,000.00 as to its awardees and its division. With the filing of such
Respecting petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the decision, the
Partial Motion for Reconsideration by respondent Ma. Theresa Q.
trial court denied the same for having been filed beyond the 15-day
Fabian which prayed for the modification and clarification of the Decision
reglementary period, it having been filed only on the 18th day (May 17,
1999) following the receipt by petitioner's counsel of a copy of the decision dated March 30, 1999, then, the said decision did not become
on April 29, 1999.22 final.34 (Underscoring supplied)

Andrei Da Jose | Page 2|5

3 Torts and Damages | Atty. Marianne Beltran-Angeles

In the case at bar, the records show that petitioner's counsel indeed
received notice of the trial court's decision on April 29, 1999. 35 Following The faux pas or negligence of petitioner's counsel, however, in failing to
Rule 37, Section 1 vis-Ã -vis Rule 41, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, file a timely motion for reconsideration should not be taken against her.
petitioner had 15 days or until May 14, 1999 to file a motion for Ordinarily, the negligence of counsel binds the client.40 However, this
reconsideration or notice of appeal. She filed a motion for reconsideration Court has recognized the following exceptions to this rule: (1) where
on May 17, 1999, thus rendering the trial court's decision as to her final reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process
and executory. Testate Estate of Manuel v. Biascan36 so teaches: of law; (2) when its application will result in outright deprivation of the
It is well-settled that judgments or orders become final and executory by client's liberty or property; or (3) where the interests of justice
operation of law and not by judicial declaration. Thus, finality of a require.41 In the case at bar, the application of the rule would result in
judgment becomes a fact upon the lapse of the reglementary period of petitioner being held liable for the damages suffered by respondents even
appeal if no appeal is perfected or [no] motion for reconsideration or new without them having established the basis of her liability, thus depriving
trial is filed. The trial court need not even pronounce the finality of the her of due process of law.
order as the same becomes final by operation of law. In fact, the trial
court could not even validly entertain a motion for reconsideration after Compounding petitioner's plight is the trial court's procedural error
the lapse of the period for taking an appeal. x x x The subsequent filing which precluded petitioner from presenting evidence in her behalf. 42 The
of a motion for reconsideration cannot disturb the finality of the trial court denied her motion for reconsideration of its order declaring her
judgment or order.37 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) "as in default" on the ground that she failed to submit an affidavit of
merit respecting her claim that she had meritorious defenses.
The filing of a motion for reconsideration by respondent Ma. Theresa
This ratio is, of course, erroneous, for an affidavit of merit is not required
within the reglementary period prevented, with respect to her, the
to support a motion for reconsideration of an order allowing the ex-
decision from becoming final, but not with respect to petitioner.
parte presentation of evidence by the plaintiff, the defenses having
already been laid down in the answer43 as in petitioner's case.
In Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Far East Molasses Corporation, 38this
Court, passing on Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court which provides
Petitioner, early on in the Affirmative Defenses segment of her Answer,
that "[t]he appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of
already disclaimed the allegation in respondents' complaint that she is
the judgment or final order appealed from" (underscoring supplied), held:
x x x the commencement of the period to appeal x x x should x x x be the registered owner of the bus, hence, not a real party-in-interest-ground
to dismiss the complaint for lack of cause of action. She raised it again in
reckoned x x x from the respective dates each of the parties received a
her Motion for Reconsideration from the order declaring her "as in
copy of the decision. Therefore, each party has a different period
default," to which motion she in fact attached the Certificate of
within which to appeal, unless, of course, all of them received their
Registration showing that the bus was registered in the name of
copies on the same date and none filed a motion for
Felicisima R. Franco. Thus, petitioner had alleged and shown her
reconsideration.39 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
meritorious defense by submitting the Certificate of Registration of the
Since each party has a different period within which to appeal, bus, which is evidence that she is not the registered owner of the bus, or
the timely filing of a motion for reconsideration by one party does not that something would be gained by setting aside the order declaring her
interrupt the other or another party's period of appeal. "as in default"44

In petitioner's case, her Motion for Reconsideration of the trial court's On the merits of the case, a review of the evidence for respondents shows
decision was filed three days after the expiration of the reglementary that individual respondents took the witness stand to testify on the
period for the purpose, hence, the Court of Appeals' dismissal of her damages they suffered.45 And they presented the Victory Liner bus
appeal was in order. inspector;46 SPO2 Edgardo F. Balajadia (Balajadia) who investigated the

Andrei Da Jose | Page 3|5

4 Torts and Damages | Atty. Marianne Beltran-Angeles

site of the accident right after it happened;47 the Victory Liner Balajadia's statement that the Franco Transit bus was "[r]egistered
maintenance foreman regarding the damage sustained by the Victory under the name of Marializa Franco-Cruz of Batac, Ilocos Norte" was not
Liner vehicles;48 the death certificates of Rodel Ganelo and Caesar shown, however, to have been based on his personal knowledge or that he
Santos;49 the marriage certificate of respondent Marites had sufficient knowledge thereof acquired by him personally or officially.
Ganelo;50 Balajadia's Traffic Accident Report;51 photographs of the
damaged vehicles;52 and the damage report showing the expenses It bears emphasis that the presentation by respondents of evidence ex-
incurred in repairing both damaged vehicles.53 parte did not relieve them of the burden of proving their claims against
petitioner.
There was no attempt, however, on the part of any of the witnesses for As in other civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the party who, as
respondents, to controvert petitioner's affirmative defense that there is no determined by the pleadings or nature of the case, asserts an affirmative
cause of action against her, she not being the registered owner of the issue. Contentions must be proved by competent evidence and reliance
Franco Transit bus, even despite her submission of the bus' Certificate of must be had on the strength of the party's own evidence and not upon the
Registration in the name of Felicisima R. Franco which is conclusive weakness of the opponent's defense. This applies with more vigor
proof of ownership. where, as in the instant case, the plaintiff was allowed to present
evidence ex parte. The plaintiff is not automatically entitled to the
Respondents, in maintaining their cause of action against petitioner, relief prayed for. The law gives the defendant some measure of protection
relied on the January 4, 1998 Traffic Accident Report54 of Balajadia, who as the plaintiff must still prove the allegations in the complaint.
conducted a spot investigation after the occurrence of the Favorable relief can be granted only after the court is convinced that the
accident,55 wherein he stated that the Franco Transit bus was facts proven by the plaintiff warrant such relief. Indeed, the party
"[r]egistered under the name of Marializa Franco-Cruz of Batac, alleging a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not
Ilocos Norte." (Emphasis supplied) How Balajadia arrived at such evidence.58 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
statement, he did not indicate in his Report. Neither did he pass on it
Respondents having failed to discharge the onus of proving that
when he took the witness stand on February 11, 1999.56
petitioner was, at the time of the accident, the registered owner of the
bus, it was error for the trial court to credit respondents' evidence.
Rule 130, Section 44 of the Rules of Court, provides:
SEC. 44. Entries in official records. - Entries in official records made in
Just as it was error for it to hold that "the defendant [-herein
the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a
petitioner] failed 1) to rebut" the evidence showing the accident was the
person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima
result of the negligence of the Franco Transit bus driver and 2) to
facie evidence of the facts therein stated. (Italics in the original)
present evidence to overthrow the presumption of negligence against her
For the entries in Balajadia's Report to qualify as prima facie evidence of pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code in light of its order allowing
the facts therein stated, the following conditions must be present: respondents to present evidence ex-parte and denying petitioner's pleas
x x x (a) that the entry was made by a public officer, or by another person to be allowed to participate in the proceedings and present evidence on
specially enjoined by the law to do so; (b) that it was made by the public her affirmative defenses.
officer in the performance of his duties or by such other person in the
performance of a duty enjoined by law; and (c) that the public officer or The trial court's decision in favor of respondents must thus be set aside.
other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated, which
must have been acquired by him personally or through official Given the attendant facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice,
information.57 (Underscoring supplied) this Court resolves to remand the case to the trial court to afford
petitioner her right to due process.

Andrei Da Jose | Page 4|5

5 Torts and Damages | Atty. Marianne Beltran-Angeles

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Thedecision of the Court of

Appeals dated September 22, 2005 dismissing petitioner's appeal from
the decision of Branch 121 of the Caloocan City Regional Trial Court
is SET ASIDE. The decision of the trial court is vacated. Civil Case No.
C-18212 is REMANDED to Branch 121 of the Regional Trial Court of
Caloocan City which is hereby directed to allow petitioner to present
evidence on her affirmative defenses and/or rebut respondents' evidence
and to allow respondents to submit additional evidence if necessary
and/or they so desire.

SO ORDERED.

Quisumbing, (Chairperson), Tinga, Velasco, Jr., and Brion, JJ.,

Concur.

Andrei Da Jose | Page 5|5