Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No.

116121 July 18, 2011

In favor of herein plaintiffs an a%ainst efen ant ,ose 0uballa5 P -(,(((.( (

). 7or the eath of Ruben Reinoso, Sr. @@@@@@

THE HEIRS OF THE LATE RUBEN REINOSO, SR., r !r " #$ % &y Ru& # R '#o"o Jr., Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PONCIANO TAPALES, JOSE GUBALLA, (#% FIL)RITERS GUARANT* ASSURANCE CORPORATION,** Respon ent. D!"ISION MEN+O,A, J.: #efore the "ourt is a petition for revie$ assailin% the Ma& '(, )**+ Decision an ,une -(, )**+ Resolution' of the "ourt of .ppeals (CA), in "./0.R. "V No. )*-*1, $hich set asi e the March '', )*22 Decision of the Re%ional Trial "ourt, #ranch 2, Manila (RTC) for non/ pa&3ent of oc4et fees. The ispositive portion of the ". ecision rea s5 IN VI!6 O7 .88 TH! 7OR!0OIN0, the ecision appeale fro3 is S!T .SID! an R!V!RS!D an the co3plaint in this case is or ere DISMISS!D. No costs pronounce3ent. SO ORD!R!D. The co3plaint for a3a%es arose fro3 the collision of a passen%er jeepney an a truc4 at aroun 95(( o:cloc4 in the evenin% of ,une )+, )*9* alon% !. Ro ri%ue; .venue, <ue;on "it&. .s a result, a passen%er of the jeepney, Ruben Reinoso, Sr. (Reinoso), $as 4ille . The passen%er jeepney $as o$ne b& Ponciano Tapales (Tapales) an riven b& .le=an ro Santos (Santos), $hile the truc4 $as o$ne b& ,ose 0uballa (Guballa) an riven b& Mariano 0eroni3o (Geronimo). On Nove3ber 9, )*9*, the heirs of Reinoso (petitioners) file a co3plaint for a3a%es a%ainst Tapales an 0uballa. In turn, 0uballa file a thir part& co3plaint a%ainst 7il$riters 0uarant& .ssurance "orporation >70."? un er Polic& Nu3ber OV/(*1'9. On March '', )*22, the RT" ren ere 0uballa. The ecision in part, rea s5 a ecision in favor of the petitioners an a%ainst
)

'. 8oss of earnin%s >3onthl& inco3e at the ti3e of eath >P ',(((.(( "ourt use P ),(((.(( onl& per 3onth >or P )',(((.(( onl& per &ear? A victi3 then bein% 11 at eath ha ten >)(? &ears life )'(,(((.( eBpectanc&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ( -. Mortuar&, Me ical A funeral eBpenses an all inci ental eBpenses in the $a4e in servin% those $ho con ole @@@@ )1,(((.(( +. Moral a3a%es @@@@@@@@@@@@@@.. 1. !Be3plar& a3a%es @@@@@@@@@@@@@ C. 8iti%ation eBpenses @@@@@@@@@@@@@. 9. .ttorne&:s fees @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Or a total of 1(,(((.(( '1,(((.(( )1,(((.(( '1,(((.(( P '1(,(((. ((

7or a3a%es to propert&5 In favor of efen ant Ponciano Tapales an a%ainst efen ant ,ose 0uballa5 ). .ctual a3a%es for repair is alrea & a$ar e to efen ant/cross/clai3ant Ponciano Tapales b& #r. *, RT"/Malolos, #ulacan >Vi e5 !Bh. )/0/Tapales?D hence, cannot recover t$ice. '. "o3pensator& a3a%es >earnin%s at P )1(.(( per a&? an for t$o >'? 3onths =eepne& sta&e at the repair P *,(((.( shop@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@. ( -. +. 1. Moral a3a%es @@@@@@@@@... !Be3plar& a3a%es @@@@@@@. .ttorne&:s fees@@@@@@@@@@ )(,(((.( ( )(,(((.( ( )1,(((.( (

or a total of

P ++,(((. ((

.. The "ourt of .ppeals MIS.PP8I!D TH! RE8IN0 of the Supre3e "ourt in the case of Manchester Corporation vs. Court of Appeals to this case. #. The issue on the specification of the a3a%es appearin% in the pra&er of the "o3plaint $as N!V!R P8."!D IN ISSE! #H .NH O7 TH! P.RTI!S IN TH! "OERT O7 ORI0IN >R!0ION.8 TRI.8 "OERT? NOR IN TH! "OERT O7 .PP!.8S. ". The issues of the case revolve aroun the 3ore substantial issue as to the ne%li%ence of the private respon ents an their culpabilit& to petitioners.I 9 The petitioners ar%ue that the rulin% in Manchester shoul not have been applie retroactivel& in this case, since it $as file prior to the pro3ul%ation of the Manchester ecision in )*29. The& plea that thou%h this "ourt state that failure to state the correct a3ount of a3a%es $oul lea to the is3issal of the co3plaint, sai octrine shoul be applie prospectivel&. Moreover, the petitioners assert that at the ti3e of the filin% of the co3plaint in )*9*, the& $ere not certain of the a3ount of a3a%es the& $ere entitle to, because the a3ount of the lost inco3e $oul still be finall& eter3ine in the course of the trial of the case. The& clai3 that the =uris iction of the trial court re3ains even if there $as failure to pa& the correct filin% fee as lon% as the correct a3ount $oul be pai subseGuentl&. 7inall&, the petitioners stress that the alle%e RT" or in the ".. The "ourt fin s 3erit in the petition. The rule is that pa&3ent in full of the oc4et fees $ithin the prescribe perio is 3an ator&.2 In Manchester v. Court of Appeals ,* it $as hel that a court acGuires =uris iction over an& case onl& upon the pa&3ent of the prescribe oc4et fee. The strict application of this rule $as, ho$ever, relaBe t$o >'? &ears after in the case of Sun Insurance ffice! "t#. v. Asuncion ,)( $herein the "ourt ecree that $here the initiator& plea in% is not acco3panie b& the pa&3ent of the oc4et fee, the court 3a& allo$ pa&3ent of the fee $ithin a reasonable perio of ti3e, but in no case be&on the applicable prescriptive or re%le3entar& perio . This rulin% $as 3a e on the pre3ise that the plaintiff ha e3onstrate his $illin%ness to abi e b& the rules b& pa&in% the a itional oc4et fees reGuire .)) Thus, in the 3ore recent case of $nite# verseas %an& v. Ros,)' the "ourt eBplaine that $here the part& oes not eliberatel& inten to efrau the court in pa&3ent of oc4et fees, an 3anifests its $illin%ness to abi e b& the rules b& pa&in% a itional oc4et fees $hen reGuire b& the court, the liberal octrine enunciate in Sun Insurance ffice! "t#., an not the strict re%ulations set in Manchester, $ill appl&. It has been on recor that the "ourt, in several instances, allo$e the relaBation of the rule on non/pa&3ent of oc4et fees in or er to affor the parties the opportunit& to full& ventilate their cases on the 3erits. In the case of "a Salette Colle'e v. (ilotin! )-the "ourt state 5 efect $as never put in issue either in the

En er the -r part& co3plaint a%ainst -r part& efen ant 7il$riters 0uarant& .ssurance "orporation, the "ourt hereb& ren ers =u %3ent in favor of sai -r part& plaintiff b& $a& of -r part& liabilit& un er polic& No. OV/(*1'9 in the a3ount of P 1(,(((.(( un erta4in% plus P )(,(((.(( as an for attorne&:s fees. 7or all the fore%oin%, it is the $ell consi ere vie$ of the "ourt that plaintiffs, efen ant Ponciano Tapales an -r Part& plaintiff ,ose 0uballa establishe their clai3s as specifie above, respectivel&. Totalit& of evi ence prepon erance in their favor. ,ED0M!NT 6H!R!7OR!, in vie$ of the fore%oin%, =u %3ent is hereb& ren ere as follo$s5 In favor of plaintiffs for the Sr@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@.P'1(,(((.((D In favor of efen ant Ponciano Tapales @@@@. P++,(((.((D ue to eath of Ruben Reinoso,

a3a%e of his passen%er =eepne&

In favor of efen ant ,ose 0uballa (*1'9@@@@@@@@@@@@@ PC(,(((.((D

un er

Polic&

No.

OV/

.ll the specifie accounts $ith CF le%al rate of interest per annu3 fro3 ate of co3plaint until full& pai >Refor3ina vs. To3ol, )-* S"R. 'C(D an finall&D "osts of suit. SO ORD!R!D.On appeal, the "., in its Decision ate Ma& '(, )**+, set asi e an reverse the RT" ecision an is3isse the co3plaint on the %roun of non/pa&3ent of oc4et fees pursuant to the octrine lai o$n in Manchester v. CA.+ In a ition, the ". rule that since prescription ha set in, petitioners coul no lon%er pa& the reGuire oc4et fees. 1 Petitioners file a 3otion for reconsi eration of the ". ecision but it $as enie resolution ate ,une -(, )**+.C Hence, this appeal, anchore on the follo$in% 0ROENDS5 in a

Not$ithstan in% the 3an ator& nature of the reGuire3ent of pa&3ent of appellate oc4et fees, $e also reco%ni;e that its strict application is Gualifie b& the follo$in%5 first, failure to pa& those fees $ithin the re%le3entar& perio allo$s onl& iscretionar&, not auto3atic, is3issalD secon#! such po$er shoul be use b& the court in con=unction $ith its eBercise of soun iscretion in accor ance $ith the tenets of =ustice an fair pla&, as $ell as $ith a %reat eal of circu3spection in consi eration of all atten ant circu3stances. )+ 6hile there is a cr&in% nee to unclo% court oc4ets on the one han , there is, on the other, a %reater e3an for resolvin% %enuine isputes fairl& an eGuitabl&, )1 for it is far better to ispose of a case on the 3erit $hich is a pri3or ial en , rather than on a technicalit& that 3a& result in in=ustice. In this case, it cannot be enie that the case $as liti%ate before the RT" an sai trial court ha alrea & ren ere a ecision. 6hile it $as at that level, the 3atter of non/ pa&3ent of oc4et fees $as never an issue. It $as onl& the ". $hich motu propio is3isse the case for sai reason. "onsi erin% the fore%oin%, there is a nee to suspen the strict application of the rules so that the petitioners $oul be able to full& an finall& prosecute their clai3 on the 3erits at the appellate level rather than fail to secure =ustice on a technicalit&, for, in ee , the %eneral ob=ective of proce ure is to facilitate the application of =ustice to the rival clai3s of conten in% parties, bearin% al$a&s in 3in that proce ure is not to hin er but to pro3ote the a 3inistration of =ustice. )C The "ourt also ta4es into account the fact that the case $as file before the Manchester rulin% ca3e out. !ven if sai rulin% coul be applie retroactivel&, liberalit& shoul be accor e to the petitioners in vie$ of the recenc& then of the rulin%. 8enienc& because of recenc& $as applie to the cases of )ar *astern Shippin' Company v. Court of Appeals)9 an Spouses +immy an# (atri Chan v. RTC of ,amboan'a. )2 In the case of Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Man'ubat (Mactan) ,)* it $as state that the Iintent of the "ourt is clear to affor liti%ants full opportunit& to co3pl& $ith the ne$ rules an to te3per enforce3ent of sanctions in vie$ of the recencyof the chan%es intro uce b& the ne$ rules.I In Mactan! the Office of the Solicitor 0eneral >OS0? also faile to pa& the correct oc4et fees on ti3e. 6e hel in another case5 B B B It bears stressin% that the rules of proce ure are 3erel& tools esi%ne to facilitate the attain3ent of =ustice. The& $ere conceive an pro3ul%ate to effectivel& ai the court in the ispensation of =ustice. "ourts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of =u icial iscretion. In ren erin% =ustice, courts have al$a&s been, as the& ou%ht to be, conscientiousl& %ui e b& the nor3 that, on the balance, technicalities ta4e a bac4seat a%ainst substantive ri%hts, an not the other $a& aroun . Thus, if the application of the Rules $oul ten to frustrate rather than pro3ote =ustice, it is al$a&s $ithin the po$er of the "ourt to suspen the Rules, or eBcept a particular case fro3 its operation. '(

The petitioners, ho$ever, are liable for the ifference bet$een the actual fees pai an the correct pa&able oc4et fees to be assesse b& the cler4 of court $hich shall constitute a lien on the =u %3ent pursuant to Section ' of Rule )+) $hich provi es5 S!". '. 7ees in lien. J 6here the court in its final =u %3ent a$ar s a clai3 not alle%e , or a relief ifferent fro3, or 3ore than that clai3e in the plea in%, the part& concerne shall pa& the a itional fees $hich shall constitute a lien on the =u %3ent in satisfaction of sai lien. The cler4 of court shall assess an collect the correspon in% fees. .s the "ourt has ta4en the position that it $oul be %rossl& un=ust if petitioners: clai3 $oul be is3isse on a strict application of the Manchester octrine, the appropriate action, un er or inar& circu3stances, $oul be for the "ourt to re3an the case to the ".. "onsi erin%, ho$ever, that the case at bench has been pen in% for 3ore than -( &ears an the recor s thereof are alrea & before this "ourt, a re3an of the case to the ". $oul onl& unnecessaril& prolon% its resolution. In the hi%her interest of substantial =ustice an to spare the parties fro3 further ela&, the "ourt $ill resolve the case on the 3erits. The facts are be&on ispute. Reinoso, the jeepney passen%er, ie as a result of the collision of a jeepney an a truc4 on ,une )+, )*9* at aroun 95(( o:cloc4 in the evenin% alon% !. Ro ri%ue; .venue, <ue;on "it&. It $as establishe that the pri3ar& cause of the in=ur& or a3a%e $as the ne%li%ence of the truc4 river $ho $as rivin% it at a ver& fast pace. #ase on the s4etch an spot report of the police authorities an the narration of thejeepney river an his passen%ers, the collision $as brou%ht about because the truc4 river su enl& s$erve to, an encroache on, the left si e portion of the roa in an atte3pt to avoi a $oo en barrica e, hittin% the passen%er jeepney as a conseGuence. The anal&sis of the RT" appears in its ecision as follo$s5 Perusal an careful anal&sis of evi ence a uce as $ell as proper consi eration of all the circu3stances an factors bearin% on the issue as to $ho is responsible for the instant vehicular 3ishap convince an persua e this "ourt that prepon erance of proof is in favor of plaintiffs an efen ant Ponciano Tapales. The %reater 3ass of evi ence sprea on the recor s an its influence support plaintiffs: plaint inclu in% that of efen ant Tapales. The 8an Transportation an Traffic Rule >R... No. +)-C?, rea s as follo$s5 ISec. -9. Drivin% on ri%ht si e of hi%h$a&. J Enless a ifferent course of action is reGuire in the interest of the safet& an the securit& of life, person or propert&, or because of unreasonable ifficult& of operation in co3pliance there$ith, ever& person operatin% a 3otor vehicle or an ani3al ra$n vehicle on hi%h$a& shall pass to the ri%ht $hen 3eetin% persons or vehicles co3in% to$ar hi3, an to the left $hen overta4in% persons or vehicles %oin% the sa3e irection, an $hen turnin% to the left in %oin% fro3 one hi%h$a& to another, ever& vehicle shall be con ucte to the ri%ht of the center of the intersection of the hi%h$a&.I

Havin% in 3in the fore%oin% provision of la$, this "ourt is convince of the veracit& of the version of the passen%er =eepne& river .le=an ro Santos, >plaintiffs: an Tapales: $itness? that $hile runnin% on lane No. + $est$ar boun to$ar s Orti%as .venue at bet$een -(/+( 43s. per hour >C-/C+ tsn, ,an. C, )*2+? the Isan A %ravelI truc4 fro3 the opposite irection riven b& Mariano 0eroni3o, the hea li%hts of $hich the for3er ha seen $hile still at a istance of about -(/+( 3eters fro3 the $oo en barrica e astri e lanes ) an ', upon reachin% sai $oo en bloc4 su enl& s$erve to the left into lanes an + at hi%h spee Inapa4abilis po n% atin% n% truc4.I >'* tsn, Sept. 'C, )*21? in the process hittin% the3 >,eepne& passen%er? at the left si e up to $here the reserve tire $as in an obliGue 3anner IpahilisI >19 tsn, Sept. 'C, )*21?. The =eepne& after it $as bu3pe b& the truc4 ue to the stron% i3pact $as thro$n Irestin% on its ri%ht si e $hile the left si e $as on top of the #an%4eta >si e $al4?I. The passen%ers of the =eepne& an its river $ere in=ure inclu in% t$o passen%ers $ho ie . The left si e of the =eepne& suffere consi erable a3a%e as seen in the picture >!Bhs. + A 1/Tapales, pa%es --)/--', recor s? ta4en $hile at the repair shop. The "ourt is convince of the narration of Santos to the effect that the I%ravel A san I truc4 $as runnin% in hi%h spee on the %oo portion of !. Ro ri%ue; .venue >lane ) A '? before the $oo en barrica e an >havin% in 3in that it ha =ust elivere its loa at the "orinthian 0ar ens? so that $hen su enl& confronte $ith the $oo en obstacle before it ha to avoi the sa3e in a 3anner of a refleB reaction or 4nee/=er4 response b& forth$ith s$ervin% to his left into the ri%ht lanes >lanes - A +?. .t the ti3e of the bu3pin%, the =eepne& $as runnin% on its ri%ht lane No. + an even urin% the 3o3ents before sai bu3pin%, 3ovin% at 3o erate spee thereon since lane No. - $as then so3e$hat rou%h because bein% repaire also accor in% to Mon alia $ho has no reason to prevaricate bein% herself one of those seriousl& in=ure . The narration of Santos an Mon alia are convincin% an consistent in epictin% the true facts of the case untainte b& vacillation an therefore, $orth& to be relie upon. Their stor& is forfeite an confir3e b& the s4etch ra$n b& the investi%atin% officer Pfc. 7. .3aba, Traffic Division, NPD, <ue;on "it& $ho rushe to the scene of the 3ishap >Vi e5 Resolution of .sst fiscal !li;abeth #. Re&es 3ar4e as !Bhs. 9, 9/., 9/#/Tapales, pp. )CC/)C2, recor sD the "ertifie "op& foun on pa%es 1*2/C((, ibi , $ith the attache police s4etch of Pfc. .3aba, 3ar4e as !Bh. 2/ Tapales on pa%e )C*, ibi D certifie cop& of $hich is on pa%e 1*+, ibi ? in icatin% the fact that the bu3pin% in ee occurre at lane No. + an sho$in% ho$ the K%avel A san : truc4 is positione in relation to the =eepne&. The sai police s4etch havin% been 3a e ri%ht after the acci ent is a piece of evi ence $orth& to be relie upon sho$in% the true facts of the bu3pin%/occurrence. The rule that official ut& ha been perfor3e >Sec.1>3?, R/)-), an also Sec. -2, R/a-(, Rev. Rules of "ourt? J there bein% no evi ence a uce an 3a e of recor to the contrar& J is that sai circu3stance involvin% the t$o vehicles ha been the result of an official investi%ation an 3ust be ta4en as true b& this "ourt.')-a.phi6hile en in% up on the opposite lane is not conclusive proof of fault in auto3obile collisions,'' the position of the t$o vehicles, as epicte in the s4etch of the police officers, clearl& sho$s that it $as the truc4 that hit the jeepney. The evi entiar& recor s isclose that the truc4 $as spee in% alon% !. Ro ri%ue;, hea in% to$ar s Santolan Street, $hile the passen%er jeepney $as co3in% fro3 the opposite irection. 6hen the truc4 reache a

certain point near the Meralco Post No. ,*/+1(, the front portion of the truc4 hit the left 3i le si e portion of the passen%er jeepney, causin% a3a%e to both vehicles an in=uries to the river an passen%ers of the jeepney. The truc4 river shoul have been 3ore careful, because, at that ti3e, a portion of !. Ro ri%ue; .venue $as un er repair an a $oo en barrica e $as place in the 3i le thereof. The "ourt li4e$ise sustains the fin in% of the RT" that the truc4 o$ner, 0uballa, faile to rebut the presu3ption of ne%li%ence in the hirin% an supervision of his e3plo&ee. .rticle ')9C, in relation to .rticle ')2( of the "ivil "o e, provi es5 .rt. ')9C. 6hoever b& act or o3ission causes a3a%e to another, there bein% fault or ne%li%ence is obli%e to pa& for the a3a%e one. Such fault or ne%li%ence, if there is no pre/eBistin% contractual relation bet$een the parties, is calle a Guasi/ elict an is %overne b& the provisions of this "hapter. BBBB .rt. ')2(. The obli%ation i3pose b& .rt. ')9C is e3an able not onl& for one:s o$n acts or o3issions but also for those of persons for $ho3 one is responsible. BBBB !3plo&ers shall be liable for the a3a%e cause b& their e3plo&ees an househol helpers actin% $ithin the scope of their assi%ne tas4s even thou%h the for3er are not en%a%e in an& business or in ustr&. BBBB The responsibilit& treate of in this article shall cease $hen the persons herein 3entione prove that the& observe all the ili%ence of a %oo father of a fa3il& to prevent a3a%e. 6henever an e3plo&ee:s ne%li%ence causes a3a%e or in=ur& to another, there instantl& arises a presu3ptionjuris tantum that the e3plo&er faile to eBercise #ili'entissimi patris families in the selection or supervision of his e3plo&ee. '- Thus, in the selection of prospective e3plo&ees, e3plo&ers are reGuire to eBa3ine the3 as to their Gualification, eBperience an service recor . 6ith respect to the supervision of e3plo&ees, e3plo&ers 3ust for3ulate stan ar operatin% proce ures, 3onitor their i3ple3entation, an i3pose isciplinar& 3easures for breaches thereof. These facts 3ust be sho$n b& concrete proof, inclu in% ocu3entar& evi ence.'+ Thus, the RT" co33itte no error in fin in% that the evi ence presente b& respon ent 0uballa $as $antin%. It rule 5 B B B. .s eBpecte , efen ant ,ose 0uballa, atte3pte to overthro$ this presu3ption of ne%li%ence b& sho$in% that he ha eBercise the ue ili%ence reGuire of hi3 b& seein% to it that the river 3ust chec4 the vital parts of the vehicle he is assi%ne to before he

leaves the co3poun li4e the oil, $ater, bra4es, %asoline, horn >* tsn, ,ul& )9, )*2C?D an that 0eroni3o ha been rivin% for hi3 so3eti3e in )*9C until the collision in liti%ation ca3e about >1/C tsn, ibi ?D that $henever his truc4s %ets out of the co3poun to 3a4e eliveries, it is al$a&s acco3panie $ith t$o >'? helpers >)C/)9 tsn, ibi ?. This $as all $hich he consi ere as selection an supervision in co3pliance $ith the la$ to free hi3self fro3 an& responsibilit&. This "ourt then cannot consi er the fore%oin% as eGuivalent to an eBercise of all the care of a %oo father of a fa3il& in the selection an supervision of his river Mariano 0eroni3o.I '1 )HEREFORE, the petition is 0R.NT!D. The Ma& '(, )**+ Decision an ,une -(, )**+ Resolution of the "ourt of .ppeals are RE-ERSE+ an S!T .SID! an the March '', )*22 Decision of the Re%ional Trial "ourt, #ranch 2, Manila, is R!INST.T!D. SO ORD!R!D.