THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 136048. January 23, 2001]

JOSE BARITUA and JB INE, petitioners, vs. NI!"A #I$INA !ER%A#ER &n '(r )a*a)&+y and a, -uard&an o.
#AR/IN, GIO$ANNI, RO#E and #ENNIS, a00 ,urna1(d !ER%A#ER2 EONI#A $da. d( !ER%A#ER on
'(r 3('a0. and on 3('a0. o. '(r 1&nor )'&0d !AR4 JO4 !ER%A#ER2 S5IRE4 !ER%A#ER #EA %RU62
!ARIA T5ERESA !ER%A#ER7GAR%IA2 #ANIO !ER%A#ER2 JOSE #ANTE !ER%A#ER2 and JOSE"INA
!ER%A#ER, respondents.
# E % I S I O N
8ANGANIBAN, J.9
The Manchester ruling requiring the payment of docket and other fees as a condition for the acquisition of jurisdiction
has no retroactie effect and applies only to cases filed after its finality!
T'( %a,(
"efore us is a #etition for Reie$ under Rule %& of the Rules of 'ourt( assailing the )pril *+( *,,- Decision
.*/
and the
Octo0er 1-( *,,- Resolution
.1/
of the 'ourt of )ppeals 2')3 in ')45R 'V No! %6++1! The decretal portion of said
Decision reads as follo$s7
89H:R:;OR:( upon all the foregoing premises considered( the D:'ISION appealed from is );;IR<:D $ith the
<ODI;I')TION that the loss of earnings of the late Dominador <ercader is reduced to #+,-(666!66!=
.>/
The assailed Resolution denied petitioners? <otion for Reconsideration!
The 'ourt of )ppeals sustained the Decision of the Regional Trial 'ourt 2RT'3 of @aoang( Northern Samar 2"ranch
1*3! :Acept for the modification of the loss of earnings( it affirmed all the monetary damages granted 0y the trial court to
respondents! The decretal portion of the assailed RT' Decision reads as follo$s7
.%/
89H:R:;OR:( on preponderance of eidence( judgment is for .herein respondents/ and against .herein petitioners/(
ordering the latter to pay the former7
2a3 )s compensatory damages for the death of Dominador <ercader 44 #&6(666!66B
203 ;or the loss of earnings of the late Dominador <ercader 44 #*(CC6(666!66( more or less( 0ased on the aerage life
span of +& years from the time of his death $ho earned a net income of #&(666!66 monthly out of his 0usinessB
2c3 )ctual damages of #>6(666!66 receipted purchases of goods in <anilaB #&(+&6!66 for the first class coffin and a *&4
day $ake serices eidenced 0y a receipt marked :Ah! DD?B .#/-&6!66 for the &6 A C6 headstone( receipt marked :Ah! D:?
and #*(&,6!66 44 Deed of )0solute Sale of a 0urial lot( marked :Ah! D;?B
2d3 1&E of $hateer amount is collected 0y .respondents/ from .petitioners/ 0ut no less than #&6(666!66 plus #*(666!66
per hearing 0y $ay of attorney?s feesB
2e3 )s moral damages 44 #&6(666!66B
2f3 )s eAemplary damages 44 #>6(666!66B and
2g3 To pay the costs!=
T'( "a)+,
The antecedents of the case are succinctly summariFed 0y the 'ourt of )ppeals in this $ise7
8The original complaint $as filed against G" @ines( Inc! .#etitioner G" @ines( Inc!/ filed a motion to dismiss complaint( to
strike out false4impertinent matters therefrom( andHor for 0ill of particulars on the primary grounds that .respondents/ failed
to implead Gose "aritua as an indispensa0le party and that the cause of action is a suit against a $rong and non4eAistent
party! .Respondents/ filed an opposition to the said motion and an amended complaint!
8In an Order dated Decem0er **( *,-% the trial court denied the aforesaid motion and admitted the amended complaint of
.respondents/ impleading Gose "aritua and alleged the follo$ing7
1
D2*63 The late Dominador <ercader is a .0/usinessman mainly engaged in the 0uy and sell of dry goods in @aoang( N!
Samar! He 0uys his goods from <anila and 0ring.s/ them to @aoang( Northern Samar for sale at his store located in the
said localityB
2**3 Sometime on <arch *C( *,->( the late Dominador <ercader 0oarded .petitioners?/ 0us No! *%1 $ith #late No! %-%
:I at .petitioners?/ <anila StationHterminal( 0ound for "rgy! Ra$is( @aoang Northern Samar as a paying passengerB
2*13 )t that time( Dominador <ercader had $ith him as his 0aggage( assorted goods 2i!e! long pants( short pants( dusters(
etc!3 $hich he like$ise loaded in .petitioners?/ 0usB
2*>3 The late Dominador <ercader $as not a0le to reach his destination considering that on <arch *+( *,-> at "eily
2"ugco3 "ridge( "arangay RoAas( <ondragon( Northern Samar( $hile he $as on 0oard .petitioners?/ 0us no! *%1 $ith
#late No! %-% :I( the said 0us fell into the rier as a result of $hich the late Dominador <ercader died! A A A!
2*%3 The accident happened 0ecause .petitioners?/ drier negligently and recklessly operated the 0us at a fast speed in
$anton disregard of traffic rules and regulations and the preailing conditions then eAisting that caused .the/ 0us to fall
into the rier!?
8.Respondents/ then filed a motion to declare .petitioners/ in default $hich motion $as opposed 0y .petitioners/!
.Respondents/ $ithdre$ the said motion prompting the trial court to cancel the scheduled hearing of the said motion to
declare .petitioners/ in default in an Order dated Ganuary 1>( *,-&!
8In its ans$er( .petitioners/ denied specifically all the material allegations in the complaint and alleged the follo$ing7
D1! The alleged person of Dominador <ercader did not 0oard 0us *%1 at .petitioners?/ <anila stationHterminal A A A as a
2supposed paying passenger3! There is een no statement in the complaint that Dominador <ercader 2if it $ere true that
he $as a passenger of 0us *%1 Dat the .petitioners?/ <anila stationHterminal?3 $as issued any passenger4freight ticket
conforma0ly $ith la$ and practice! It is a fact of pu0lic kno$ledge that( in compliance $ith eAisting rules and la$s(
.#etitioner/ "aritua( as a pu0lic utility operator( issues( thru his conductors( in appropriate situations( to a true passenger(
the familiar and kno$n passenger and freight ticket $hich reads in part7
DNOTI':
"aggage carried at o$ner?s risk A A A lia0ility on prepaid freight other$ise declared!
A A A A A A A A A
9hole ;are #aid # JJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
Declared alue JJJJJJJJJJJJ A A A!
Description of ;reight JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
Signature of O$ner!?
>! It is also a fact of pu0lic kno$ledge that .#etitioner/ "aritua does not hae any D<anila stationHterminal(? 0ecause $hat
he has is a #asay city station!
%! .#etitioner/ "aritua had no prior kno$ledge that( on or a0out <arch *+( *,->( andHor preious thereto( the "ugko "ailey
"ridge 2across 'atarman4@aoang road3 in "arangay RoAas( <ondragon( Northern Samar( $as in irtual dilapida.ted/ and
dangerous condition( in a state of decay and disrepair( thus calling for the concerned goernment and pu0lic officials?
performance of their coordinatie and joint duties and responsi0ilities( to repair( improe and maintain that 0ridge( in good
and reasona0ly safe condition( 0ut( far from performing or complying $ith said su0ject duties and responsi0ilities( the
aderted officials concerned( $ithout just cause( not only failed and neglected to cause such needed repair( improement
and maintenance of the "ugko "ailey "ridge( on or prior to <arch *+( *,->( 0ut also failed( and neglected to either close
the "ugko "ridge to pu0lic use and trael( andHor to put appropriate $arning and cautionary signs( for repair(
improement( maintenance( and safety purposes! So that( as a proAimate and direct consequence of the aggregate
officials? nonfeasance( 0ad faith( negligence( serious inefficiency( and callous indifference to pu0lic safety( that "ugko
"ridge collapsed in$ard and caed in ruin( on that <arch *+( *,->( $hile "aritua?s 0us *%1 $as cautiously and prudently
passing and traelling across the said 0ridge( as a result of $hich the 0us fell into the rier and sea $aters( despite the
eAercise and compliance 0y "aritua and his drier of their duties in the matter of their requisite degree of diligence(
caution and prudence( "aritua also eAercised and complied $ith the requisite duty of diligence( care( and prudence in the
selection and superision oer his drier( contrary to the 0aseless imputation in paragraphs *% and 16 of the original and
amended complaints! <oreoer( "aritua and his drier did not iolate any traffic rule and regulation( contrary to plaintiffs?
insinuation!
&! ;urthermore( .#etitioner/ "aritua and his drier hae no causatie connection $ith the alleged death of Dominador
<ercader $ho( according to a relia0le source( $as already seriously suffering from a lingering illness een prior to his
alleged demise! "aritua also learned lately( and so it is herein alleged that Dominador <ercader contri0uted considera0ly(
to( andHor proided the proAimate and direct cause of his o$n death( hence( he himself is to 0e 0lamed for $hateer may
2
hae happened to him or for $hateer may hae 0een sustained 0y his supposed heirs( is4K4is the suit against the
$rong party!
C! "aritua and his drier( as earlier stated( did not commit any actiona0le 0reach of contract $ith the alleged Dominador
<ercader or the latter?s supposed heirs!
+! There is no factual nor any legal 0asis for plaintiffs? proffered claims for damages!
II! );;IR<)TIV: D:;:NS:S
-! "ased on the preceding aerments( plaintiffs hae neither a cause nor a right of action against .#etitioner/ "aritua and
his drier!
-!*! The allegation that supposedly the DA A A .p/laintiffs are the compulsory heirs of the late DO<IN)DOR <:R')D:R A
A AD 2par! -( complaint3 is too ague and too 0road( as the su0ject allegation is a 0are and pure conclusionary aerment
unaccompanied 0y the requisite statement of ultimate facts constitutie of a cause or right of action!
-!1! :en assuming arguendo( $ithout ho$eer conceding( plaintiff?s statement of a cause of action( the complaint is
nonetheless replete $ith false and impertinent matters $hich fit the rule on striking out pleadings or parts thereof! To
mention only a glaring fe$7
-!1!a! The allegation on eAemplary damages A A A is impertinent and immaterial in the complaint against a supposed
employer! ;or( een theoretically assuming( $ithout ho$eer admitting a negligent act4omission on the part of a drier(
neertheless( in such a hypothetical situation( the causatie negligence( if any there $as( is personal to the $rongdoer(
i!e!( the employee4drier( to the eAclusion of the employer!
-!1!0! The allegation on supposed Dminimum life of +& years? and on Dhe eApects to earn no less than #*(C-6(666!66 A A A
is false( a pure hyper0ole( and 0ereft of factual and legal 0asis! "esides( $hat jurisprudential rule refers to is
only net earning! The la$ a0hors a claim( akin to plaintiffs? allegation( $hich is manifestly speculatie( as it may not eAist
at all! ;urthermore( the questioned allegation in the plaintiff?s original and amended complaints is not preceded 0y the
requisite statement of definitie facts( nor of any specific fact( $hich could possi0ly afford a rational 0asis for a reasona0le
eApectation of supposed earning that could 0e lost( or impaired!
-!1!c! @ike$ise( the allegations that allegedly DA A A the late Dominador <ercader 0oarded A A A "us No! *%1 A A A and that
supposedly the latter had a 0aggage A A A containing drygoods A A A in $hich case .petitioners hae/ to pay the alue
thereof in such amount as may 0e proen 0y .respondents/ in court during the trial A A A( apart from 0eing false( are
offensie to the rule on concise statement of ultimate facts! The assailed allegations also contraene Interim Rule **( D2i3f
any demand is for damages in a ciil action the amount thereof must 0e specifically alleged!? In consequence of this
aerment( .respondents/ hae not yet paid the correct docket fee( for $hich reason( .respondents?/ case may 0e dismissed
on that ground alone!
-!>! In iolation also of the same Interim Rule **( regarding the requisite definitie amount of claim( the allegation on the
supposed funeral eApense A A A does not also indicate any specific amount! So $ith the aerment on supposed moral
damage $hich may not 0e $arranted 0ecause of a0sence of allegation of fraud or 0ad faith( if any( there $as( apart from
$ant of causatie connection $ith the defendant!
-!%! The allegation in paragraph *& of the original and amended complaint is also a pure conclusionary aerment( $ithout
a factual premise!
,! .#etitioner/ G" @IN:( impleaded in the amended complaint( is merely a 0usiness name and sole proprietorship of
defendant "aritua! )s such( G" @ine is not a juridical person( nor an entity authoriFed 0y la$ to sue and 0e sued( hence( it
cannot legally 0e a party to any action! 9ith this aerment( correlated $ith that in paragraphs %4& hereof( .respondents?/
amended complaint is essentially a suit against a $rong party!=
.&/
The RT'( after due trial( rendered the aforesaid assailed Decision!
Ru0&n- o. +'( %our+ o. A**(a0,
)s earlier stated( the 'ourt of )ppeals affirmed the trial court?s a$ard of monetary damages in faor of respondents(
eAcept the amount of Dominador <ercader?s lost earnings( $hich it reduced to#+,-(666! It held that petitioners failed to
re0ut the presumption that in the eent a passenger died or $as injured( the carrier had acted negligently! #etitioners( it
added( presented no sufficient proof that they had eAercised eAtraordinary diligence!
Hence( this #etition!
.C/
T'( I,,u(,
In their <emorandum( petitioners su0mit the follo$ing issues for our consideration7
3
:I
Did the honora0le 'ourt of )ppeals 2')3 graely a0use its discretion $hen it allo$ed to pass sub silencio the trial court?s
failure to rule frontally on petitioners? plea for a 0ill of particulars( and ignored the nature of respondents? prayer in the
complaint pleading for an a$ard of 44
Da3 #*1(666!66 44 representing the death compensationB
03 )n amount to 0e proen in court( representing actual damagesB
c3 #*(CC6(666!66 or more as may 0e proen during the trial( 0y $ay of loss of earningsB
d3 )n amount to 0e proen in court as and 0y $ay of funeral eApensesB
e3 )n amount to 0e proen during the trial( representing moral damagesB
f3 )n amount to 0e determined 0y this Honora0le 'ourt( representing eAemplary damagesB
g3 )n amount equialent to 1&E of $hateer amount the plaintiffs $ould 0e a0le to collect from the
defendant 0ut in no case less than #&6(666!66 plus an additional amount of #*(666!66 per hearing as and 0y
$ay of )ttorney?s feesB?
:II
Did the ') also ignore the fact that the trial court $as not paid the correct amount of the docket and other la$ful feesB
hence( $ithout jurisdiction oer the original and amended complaints or oer the su0ject matter of the caseB
:III
Did the ') like$ise ar0itrarily disregard petitioners? constitutional right to procedural due process and fairness $hen it
ignored and thrust aside their right to present eidence and to eApect that their eidence $ill 0e duly considered and
appreciatedB and
:I$
In a$arding eAcessie and eAtraagant damages( did the ') and the trial court adhere to the rule that their assailed
decision must state clearly and distinctly the facts and the la$s on $hich they are 0asedL=
.+/
Distilling the alleged errors cited a0oe( petitioners raise t$o main issues for our consideration7 2*3 $hether the ')
erred in holding that the RT' had jurisdiction oer the su0ject matter of the case( and 213 $hether the ') disregarded
petitioners? procedural rights!
T'( %our+;, Ru0&n-
The #etition is deoid of merit!
"&r,+ I,,u(9 Jurisdiction
#etitioners contend that since the correct amounts of docket and other la$ful fees $ere not paid 0y respondents(
then the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction oer the su0ject matter of the case!
The 'ourt( in Manchester Development Corporation v. CA,
.-/
held that 8.t/he court acquires jurisdiction oer any case
only upon the payment of the prescri0ed docket fee! )n amendment of the complaint or similar pleading $ill not there0y
est jurisdiction in the court( much less the payment of the docket fee 0ased on the amounts sought in the amended
pleading! A A A!=
5enerally( the jurisdiction of a court is determined 0y the statute in force at the commencement of the action(
.,/
unless
such statute proides for its retroactie application!
.*6/
Once the jurisdiction of a court attaches( it continues until the case
is finally terminated!
.**/
The trial court cannot 0e ousted therefrom 0y su0sequent happenings or eents( although of a
character that $ould hae preented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance!
.*1/
The Manchester ruling( $hich 0ecame final in *,-+( has no retroactie application and cannot 0e inoked in the
su0ject 'omplaint filed in *,-%! The 'ourt eAplicitly declared7
8To put a stop to this irregularity( henceforth all complaints, petitions, answers and other similar pleadings should specify
the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer, and said damages
shall be considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any case. )ny pleading that fails to comply $ith this
requirement shall not 0e accepted nor admitted( or shall other$ise 0e eApunged from the record!=
.*>/
2emphasis supplied3
4
S()ond I,,u(9 Petitioners Procedural Rights
Motion for a Bill of Particulars
#etitioners argue that the 'ourt of )ppeals erred $hen it passed sub silencio on the trial court?s failure to rule
frontally on their plea for a 0ill of particulars!
9e are not impressed! It must 0e noted that petitioners? counsel manifested in open court his desire to file a motion
for a 0ill of particulars! The RT' gae him ten days from <arch *1( *,-& $ithin $hich to do so!
.*%/
He( ho$eer( filed the
aforesaid motion only on )pril 1( *,-& or eleen days past the deadline set 0y the trial court!
.*&/
<oreoer( such motion
$as already moot and academic 0ecause( prior to its filing( petitioners had already filed their ans$er and seeral other
pleadings to the amended 'omplaint! Section *( Rule *1 of the Rules of 'ourt( proides7
8Section *! 9hen applied forB purpose! 44 Before responding to a pleading, a party may moe for a more definite statement
or for a 0ill of particulars of any matter $hich is not aerred $ith sufficient definiteness or particularity to ena0le him
properly to prepare his responsie pleading! If the pleading is a reply( the motion must 0e filed $ithin ten 2*63 days from
serice thereof! Such motion shall point out the defects complained of( the paragraphs $herein they are contained( and
the details desired!=
.*C/
2emphasis supplied3
Petitioners Right to Adduce Evidence
#etitioners also argue that their right to present eidence $as iolated 0y the ')( 0ecause it did not consider their
contention that the trial judges $ho heard the case $ere 0iased and impartial! #etitioners contend( as they did 0efore the
')( that Gudge Tomas "! Noynay 0ased his Decision 8on certain chosen partial testimonies of .respondents?/ $itnesses A
A A!= They further maintain that Gudge ;ortunato Operario( $ho initially handled the case( questioned some $itnesses in
an oerFealous manner and 8assum.ed/ the dual role of magistrate and adocate!=
.*+/
These arguments are not meritorious! First( judges cannot 0e eApected to rely on the testimonies of eery
$itness! In ascertaining the facts( they determine $ho are credi0le and $ho are not! In doing so( they consider all the
eidence 0efore them! In other $ords( the mere fact that Gudge Noynay 0ased his decision on the testimonies of
respondents? $itnesses does not necessarily mean that he did not consider those of petitioners! Second( $e find no
sufficient sho$ing that Gudge Operario $as oerFealous in questioning the $itnesses! His questions merely sought to
clarify their testimonies! In all( $e reject petitioners? contention that their right to adduce eidence $as iolated!
Alleged Failure to State Clearl the Facts and the !a"
9e are not coninced 0y petitioners? contention( either( that 0oth the trial and the appellate courts failed to state
clearly and distinctly the facts and the la$ inoled in the case! )s can 0e gleaned from their Decisions( 0oth courts
clearly laid do$n their 0ases for a$arding monetary damages to respondents!
"oth the RT' and the ') found that a contract of carriage eAisted 0et$een petitioners and Dominador <ercader
$hen he 0oarded "us No! *%1 in #asay 'ity on <arch *C( *,->! #etitioners failed to transport him to his destination(
0ecause the 0us fell into a rier $hile traersing the "ugko "ailey "ridge! )lthough he suried the fall( he later died of
asphyAia secondary to dro$ning!
9e agree $ith the findings of 0oth courts that petitioners failed to o0sere eAtraordinary diligence
.*-/
that fateful
morning! It must 0e noted that a common carrier( 0y the nature of its 0usiness and for reasons of pu0lic policy( is 0ound
to carry passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can proide! It is supposed to do so 0y using the utmost
diligence of ery cautious persons( $ith due regard for all the circumstances!
.*,/
In case of death or injuries to passengers(
it is presumed to hae 0een at fault or to hae acted negligently( unless it proes that it o0sered eAtraordinary diligence
as prescri0ed in )rticles *+>> and *+&&
.16/
of the 'iil 'ode!
9e sustain the ruling of the ') that petitioners failed to proe that they had o0sered eAtraordinary diligence!
First( petitioners did not present eidence on the skill or eApertise of the drier of "us No! *%1 or the condition of that
ehicle at the time of the incident!
Second( the 0us $as oerloaded at the time! In fact( seeral indiiduals $ere standing $hen the incident occurred!
.1*/
hird( the 0us $as oerspeeding! Its conductor testified that it had oertaken seeral 0uses 0efore it reached the
"ugko "ailey "ridge!
.11/
<oreoer( prior to crossing the 0ridge( it had accelerated and maintained its speed to$ards the
0ridge!
.1>/
9e therefore 0eliee that there is no reason to oerturn the assailed ') Decision( $hich affirmed that of the RT'! It
is a $ell4settled rule that the trial court?s factual findings( $hen affirmed 0y the appellate court( are conclusie and 0inding(
if they are not tainted $ith ar0itrariness or oersight of some fact or circumstance of significance and influence!
.1%/
)s
clearly discussed a0oe( petitioners hae not presented sufficient ground to $arrant a deiation from this rule!
;inally( $e cannot fault the appellate court in its computation of the damages and lost earnings( since it effectiely
computed only net earnings in accordance $ith eAisting jurisprudence!
.1&/
/5ERE"ORE( the #etition is here0y D!"#!D, and the assailed Decision AFF#$M!D! 'osts against petitioners!
SO OR#ERE#.
5
6