3/10/2020 G.R. No. L-41767 August 23, 1978 - ROMEO FERRER, ET AL. v. VICENTE G. ERICTA, ET AL.

ET AL. : August 1978 - Philipppine Supreme Co…

RS PRO: Our Range, Your Choice

Wide range of high quality tools, electrical and industrial products.

RS Components OPEN

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

August 1978 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Custom Search Jurisprudence
Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1978 > August 1978 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-41767 August 23, 1978 - ROMEO FERRER, ET AL. v. VICENTE G. ERICTA,
ChanRobles On-Line Bar
ET AL.:
Review

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-41767. August 23, 1978.]

MR. AND MRS. ROMEO FERRER and ANNETTE FERRER, Petitioners, v. HON.
VICENTE G. ERICTA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, Quezon City, Branch XVIII, MR. AND MRS. FRANCIS
PFLEIDER and DENNIS PFLEIDER, Respondents.

Delano F. Villaruz, for Petitioners.

Porderio C. David for Private Respondents.

SYNOPSIS

On January 26, 1975, plaintiff-spouses and their daughter sued defendant-spouses

and their 16-year old son for damages arising from an accident that occurred on

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1978augustdecisions.php?id=277 1/8
3/10/2020 G.R. No. L-41767 August 23, 1978 - ROMEO FERRER, ET AL. v. VICENTE G. ERICTA, ET AL. : August 1978 - Philipppine Supreme Co…

December 31, 1970. The complaint alleged that the defendants recklessly drove a car
causing it to overturn, resulting in physical injuries on plaintiffs’ daughter who was a
passenger therein. Defendant answered that their son exercised due care in driving
the car and that plaintiffs’ daughter was not a passenger but merely a joy rider.
Subsequently, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of
prescription. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, invoking Section 2, Rule 9 which provides
that "defenses and objections not pleaded in the motion to dismiss or answer are
deemed waived." The judge sustained the motion and absolved defendants.

On petition for mandamus, the Supreme Court affirmed the order and held that
actions for damages arising from tort prescribe in four years; and the circumstance
that plaintiffs’ own allegation in the complaint shows clearly that the action had
prescribed removes the case from the rule regarding waiver of defenses by failure to
plead the same.

SYLLABUS

1. PLEADINGS; PRESCRIPTION; FAILURE TO PLEAD IN THE ANSWER. — A complaint

may be dismissed in the course of the proceedings on the ground of prescription,
although such defense was not raised in the answer, where plaintiff’s own allegation
in the complaint shows clearly that the action had prescribed. Such circumstance
removes this case from the rule under Sec. 2, Rule 9 regarding waiver of defenses by
failure to plead the same.

2. ACTIONS; PRESCRIPTION; DAMAGES BASED ON TORT. — Actions for damages

arising from tort prescribe in four (4) years.

DECISION

ANTONIO, J.:

Mandamus to compel the immediate execution of the Decision of the Court of First
Instance of Quezon City, Branch XVIII, presided over by respondent Judge, in Civil
Case No. Q-19647, dated July 21, 1975. The pertinent facts are as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

In a complaint for damages against respondents, dated December 27, 1974 but
actually filed on January 6, 1975 (Civil Case No. Q-19647), and assigned to the sala
of respondent Judge, it was alleged that defendants Mr. and Mrs. Francis Pfleider,
residents of Bayawan, Negros Oriental, were the owners or operators of a Ford pick-
up car; that at about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of December 31, 1970, in the
streets of Bayawan, Negros Oriental, their son, defendant Dennis Pfleider, who was
then only sixteen (16) years of age, without proper official authority, drove the
above-described vehicle, without due regard to traffic rules and regulations, and
without taking the necessary precaution to prevent injury to persons or damage to
property, and as a consequence the pickup car was overturned, causing physical
injuries to plaintiff Annette Ferrer, who was then a passenger therein, which injuries
paralyzed her and required medical treatment and confinement at different hospitals
for more than two (2) years; that as a result of the physical injuries sustained by
Annette, she suffered unimaginable physical pain, mental anguish, and her parents
also suffered mental anguish, moral shock and spent a considerable sum of money
for her treatment. They prayed that defendants be ordered to reimburse them for
actual expenses as well as other damages.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1978augustdecisions.php?id=277 2/8
3/10/2020 G.R. No. L-41767 August 23, 1978 - ROMEO FERRER, ET AL. v. VICENTE G. ERICTA, ET AL. : August 1978 - Philipppine Supreme Co…
SPONSORED SEARCHES
vasquez vs malvar
queto vs catolico 31 scra 52 58
supreme court cases and decisions
high court decisions
supreme court order today
SPONSORED SEARCHES
queto vs catolico 31 scra 52 58
supreme court cases and decisions
high court decisions
law court cases
judgement order
SPONSORED SEARCHES
queto vs catolico 31 scra 52 58
supreme court cases and decisions
high court decisions
where to nd law cases
adverse possession
August-1978 Jurisprudence
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1978augustdecisions.php?id=277
In due time, defendants filed their answer, putting up the affirmative defense that
defendant Dennis Pfleider exercised due care and utmost diligence in driving the
vehicle afore mentioned and alleging that Annette Ferrer and the other persons
aboard said vehicle were not passengers in the strict sense of the term, but were
merely joy riders and that, consequently, defendants had no obligation whatsoever to
plaintiffs.
At the pre-trial on May 12, 1975, only plaintiffs-petitioners and their counsel were
present. Consequently, defendants-private respondents were declared in default and
the plaintiffs-petitioners were allowed to present their evidence ex parte. On May 21,
1975, petitioners moved that they be granted an extension of ten (10) days from May
22, 1975 to present her evidence, which was granted by the court a quo. The
presentation of petitioners’ evidence was later continued by the trial court to June 16,
1975, when the deposition of Annette Ferrer was submitted by petitioners and
admitted by the trial court.
On June 26, 1975, private respondents filed a motion to "set aside the order of
default and subsequent pleadings" on the ground that "defendants’ failure to appear
for pre-trial was due to accident or excusable neglect," This was opposed by
petitioners on the ground that the said pleading was not under oath, contrary to the
requirements of Sec. 3, Rule 18 of the Rules, and that it was not accompanied by an
affidavit of merit showing that the defendants have a good defense. In view of this,
the motion of private respondents was denied by respondent Judge on July 21, 1975.
On the same date, respondent Judge rendered judgment against private respondents,
finding that the minor, Dennis Pfleider, was allowed by his parents to operate a Ford
pick-up car and because of his reckless negligence caused the accident in question,
resulting in injuries to Annette, and ordering the defendants, as a result thereof, to
pay jointly and severally the plaintiffs the following amounts; (1) 24,500.00 for actual
expenses, hospitalization and medical expenses; (2) P24,000.00 for actual expenses
for the care, medicines of plaintiff Annette for helps from December 31, 1970 to
December 31, 1974; (3) P50,000.00 for moral damages; (4) P10,000.00 for
exemplary damages; (5) P5,000.00 for attorney’s fees; and 16) costs of suit.
On September 1, 1975, private respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration 1 of
the decision and of the order denying the motion to set aside order of default, based
on the following grounds: (1) the complaint states no cause of action insofar as Mr.
and Mrs. Pfleider are concerned because it does not allege that at the time of the
mishap, defendant Dennis Pfleider was living with them, the fact being that at such
time he was living apart from them, hence, there can be no application of Article
2180 of the Civil Code, upon which parents’ liability is premised; and (2) that the
complaint shows on its face "that it was filed only on January 6, 1975, or after the
lapse of MORE THAN FOUR YEARS from the date of the accident on December 31,
1970", likewise appearing from the complaint and, therefore, the action has already
prescribed under Article 1146 of the Civil Code.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph
A Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration 2 was subsequently filed by defendants-
private respondents on September 10, 1975, alleging that their defense of
prescription has not been waived and may be raised even at such stage of the
proceedings because on the face of the complaint, as well as from the plaintiff’s
evidence, their cause of action had already prescribed, citing as authority the decision
of this Court in Philippine National Bank v. Pacific Commission House, 3 as well as the
decisions quoted therein. The Opposition 4 to the above supplemental motion
interposed by plaintiffs-petitioners averred that: (a) the defense of prescription had
been waived while the defense that the complaint states no cause of action "is
available only at any time not later than the trial and prior to the decision" ; (b)
inasmuch as defendants have been declared in default for failure to appear at the
pretrial conference, they have lost their standing in court and cannot be allowed to
adduce evidence nor to take part in the trial, in accordance with Section 2 of Rule 18
3/8
3/10/2020 G.R. No. L-41767 August 23, 1978 - ROMEO FERRER, ET AL. v. VICENTE G. ERICTA, ET AL. : August 1978 - Philipppine Supreme Co…
A.M. No. P-1158 August 1,
1978 - ALEJANDRO C. ABEJARON
v. JOSE V. PANES
G.R. No. L-20476 August 1,
1978 - IN RE: CORNELIA L. CO v.
MARGARITA TERESITA
BALMACEDA
A.M. No. L-34089 August 1,
1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs
GAUDENCIO CANDADO, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. L-39303-05 August
1, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
EUGENIO B. GALAPIA
G.R. No. L-30281 August 2,
1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
CELESTINO O. GARILLO
A.C. No. 1928 August 3, 1978
- IN RE: ATTY. MARCIAL
EDILLON
G.R. No. L-32128 August 3,
1978 - SOCORRO M. ORLINO, ET
AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
BANK
G.R. No. L-47629 August 3,
1978 - MANUEL L. GARCIA v.
ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-47770 August 10,
1978 - DIOSDADO "JOHNNY"
LEWIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
A.C. No. 1233 August
1978 - JOSE BATOY v. VICENTE
M. BLANCO
G.R. No. L-48176 August 14,
1978 - AMADO E. DE VERA v.
PEDRO SAMSON C. ANIMAS, ET
AL.
A.C. No. 728 August 16, 1978
- ARMANDO A. ALA v. JUAN G.
ATENCIA
G.R. No. L-40392 August 18,
1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
GENEROSO ALEGRIA
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1978augustdecisions.php?id=277
of the Rules of Court; and (c) the motion and supplemental motion for
reconsideration are pro forma because the defenses raised therein have been
previously raised and passed upon by respondent court in resolving defendants’
motion to set aside order of default. Being pro forma, said motion and supplemental
motion do not suspend the running of the thirty-day period to appeal, which was from
August 5, 1975, when defendants received a copy of the decision, to September 4,
1975, and hence the decision has already become final and executory. Plaintiffs-
petitioners accordingly prayed that a writ of execution be issued to enforce the
judgment in their favor.
On September 23, 1975, respondent judge, without setting aside the order of default,
issued an order absolving defendants from any liability on the grounds that: (a) the
complaint states no cause of action because it does not allege that Dennis Pfleider
was living with his parents at the time of the vehicular accident, considering that
under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the father and, in case of his death or incapacity
the mother, are only responsible for the damages caused by their minor children who
live in their company; and (b) that the defense of prescription is meritorious, since
the complaint was filed more than four (4) years after the date of the accident, and
the action to recover damages based on quasi-delict prescribes in four (4 years.
Hence, the instant petition for mandamus.
The basic issue is whether the defense of prescription had been deemed waived by
private respondents’ failure to allege the same in their answer.
A.
As early as Chua Lamko v. Dioso, Et Al., 5 this Court sustained the dismissal on a
counterclaim on the ground of prescription, although such defense was not raised in
the answer of the plaintiff. Thus, this Court held that where the answer does not take
issue with the complaint as to dates involved in the defendant’s claim of prescription,
his failure to specifically plead prescription in the answer does not constitute a waiver
of the defense of prescription, it was explained that the defense of prescription, even
if not raised in a motion to dismiss or in the answer, is not deemed waived unless
such defense raises issues of fact not appearing upon the preceding pleading.
In Philippine National Bank v. Perez, Et Al., 6 which was an action filed by the
Philippine National Bank on March 22, 1961 for revival of a judgment rendered on
December 29, 1949 against Amando Perez, Gregorio Pumuntoc and Virginia de
Pumuntoc pursuant to Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the defendants were
declared in default for their failure to file their answer. There upon, the plaintiff
submitted its evidence, but when the case was submitted for decision, the court a
quo dismissed the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s cause of action had already
14, prescribed under Articles 1144 and 1152 of the Civil Code. The plaintiff in said case,
contending that since prescription is a defense that can only be set up by defendants,
the court could not motu proprio consider it as a basis for dismissal, moved to
reconsider the order, but its motion was denied. When the issue was raised to this
Court, We ruled: chanrobles law library : red
"It is true that the defense of prescription can only be considered if the came is
invoked as such in the answer of the defendant and that in this particular instance no
such defense was invoked because the defendants had been declared in default, but
such rule does not obtain when the evidence shows that the cause of action upon
which plaintiff’s complaint is based is already barred by the statute of limitations."
(Emphasis supplied.)
Again, in Philippine National Bank v. Pacific Commission House, 7 where the action
sought to revive a judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila on
February 3, 1953 and it was patent from the stamp appearing on the first page of the
complaint that the complaint was actually filed on May 31, 1963, this Court sustained
the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of prescription, although such defense
4/8
3/10/2020 G.R. No. L-41767 August 23, 1978 - ROMEO FERRER, ET AL. v. VICENTE G. ERICTA, ET AL. : August 1978 - Philipppine Supreme Co…
A.C. No. 1825 August 22, was not raised in the answer, overruling the appellants’ invocation of Section 2 of
1978 - ROMULO SANTOS v. Rule 9 of the Rules of Court that "defenses and objections not pleaded either in a
ALBERTO M. DICHOSO motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived." We held therein that." . . the
fact that the plaintiff’s own allegation in the complaint or the evidence it presented
G.R. No. L-38315 August 22, shows clearly that the action had prescribed removes this case from the rule
1978 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS regarding waiver of the defense by failure to plead the same."cralaw virtua1aw library

LINES, INC. v. DOMINGO

MANIEGO, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-40884 August 22,
1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
ROBERTO DE LEON, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-42471 August 22,
1978 - FRANCO C. ESPIRITU v.
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, ET AL.
In the present case, there is no issue of fact involved in connection with the question
of prescription. The complaint in Civil Case No. Q-19647 alleges that the accident
which caused the injuries sustained by plaintiff Annette Ferrer occurred on December
31, 1970. It is undisputed that the action for damages was only filed on January 6,
1976. Actions for damages arising from physical injuries because of a tort must be
filed within four years. 8 The four-year period begins from the day the quasi-delict is
committed or the date of the accident. 9
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for mandamus is hereby DISMISSED, without
pronouncement as to costs.

G.R. No. L-42738 August 22, Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Aquino, Concepcion Jr., and Santos, JJ., concur.
1978 - MARIANO A. LIMOS v.
FERNANDEZ HERMANOS, INC., ET
AL. Endnotes:

G.R. No. L-47044 August 22,

1. Annex "K", Petition, p. 37, Rollo.
1978 - LUZVIMINDA Z. JAMER v.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.
2. Annex "L", Petition, p. 39, Rollo.

A.M. No. 1587-CTJ August 23,

3. L-22675, March 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 766.
1978 - FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ
v. SILVINO LU. BARRO
4. Annex "L", supra, p. 42, Rollo.

G.R. No. L-23493 August 23,

5. L-6923, October 31, 1955, 97 Phil. 821.
1978 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF
THE PHILIPPINES v. JOVENCIO A.
6. L-20412, February 28, 1966, 16 SCRA 270.
ZARAGOZA, ET AL.

7. L-22675, March 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 766, 768-769.

G.R. No. L-36937 August 23,
1978 - BENEDICTO S. PRUDON,
8. Article 1146, par. 2, New Civil Code.
ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.
9. Diocesa Paulan Et. Al. v. Zacarias Sarabia Et. Al., L-10542 July 31,
1958, 104 Phil. 1050; Jamelo v. Serfino, L-26730, April 27, 1972, 44
G.R. Nos. L-38046-47 August
SCRA 464.
23, 1978 - ADRIANO AFRO, ET
AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-38197 August 23,

1978 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v.
ANDRES B. PLAN, ET AL. Back to Home | Back to Main

G.R. No. L-41742 August 23,

1978 - MERCEDES OLLERO v.
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-41767 August 23,

1978 - ROMEO FERRER, ET AL. v.
VICENTE G. ERICTA, ET AL.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1978augustdecisions.php?id=277 5/8
3/10/2020 G.R. No. L-41767 August 23, 1978 - ROMEO FERRER, ET AL. v. VICENTE G. ERICTA, ET AL. : August 1978 - Philipppine Supreme Co…

G.R. No. L-42433 August 23,

1978 - FELISA PARIAN v.
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-43224 August 23,

1978 - ALFREDO SORIANO v.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS

G.R. No. L-47848 August 23,

1978 - TABLANTE-TUNGOL
ENTERPRISES v. CARMELO C.
NORIEL, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-34390 August 25,

1978 - SAMAHAN NG MGA
MANGGAGAWA SA FIRESTONE-
NATU, ET AL. v. FIRESTONE TIRE
& RUBBER CO., ET AL.

G.R. No. L-43249 August 25,

1978 - ABUNDIO ALBURAN v.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

G.R. No. L-44063 August 25,

1978 - VICTORIANO F. CORALES
v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-46290 August 25,

1978 - LOIDA SEPULVEDA v.
EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-46697 August 25,

1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
SEVERINO CUETO

A.M. No. 244-MJ August 31,

1978 - HILARION MANGARON v.
JUAN L. BAGANO

A.M. No. 884-CFI August 31,

1978 - BAYANI VASQUEZ v.
SEVERO MALVAR

A.M. No. 1228-MJ August 31,

1978 - ROSALINDA INDANGAN v.
DOMINADOR TUMULAK

A.M. No. 2128-JC August 31,

1978 - IN RE : REQUEST OF
CONSTANTE PIMENTEL

G.R. No. L-30072 August 31,

1978 - ALATCO
TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. JOSE
NAYVE

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1978augustdecisions.php?id=277 6/8
3/10/2020 G.R. No. L-41767 August 23, 1978 - ROMEO FERRER, ET AL. v. VICENTE G. ERICTA, ET AL. : August 1978 - Philipppine Supreme Co…

G.R. No. L-31963 August 31,

1978 - ANGEL CUNANAN v.
ANDRES C. AGUILAR

G.R. No. L-33725 August 31,

1978 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION
v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS

G.R. No. L-35213 August 31,

1978 - BALDOMERA GARCIA v.
SERAFIN OROZCO

G.R. No. L-39575 August 31,

1978 - GOV’T. SERVICE
INSURANCE SYSTEM v. GOV’T.
SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM
SUPERVISOR’S UNION

G.R. No. L-40175 August 31,

1978 - REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. WORKMEN’S
COMPENSATION COMMISSION

G.R. No. L-42340 August 31,

1978 - VICTORIA O. NATIVIDAD
v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION

G.R. No. L-42776 August 31,

1978 - MACAPASIR ALONTO v.
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION

G.R. No. L-42794 August 31,

1978 - NENITA ALMAIZ v.
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION

G.R. No. L-43030 August 31,

1978 - ZACARIAS PONCE v.
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION

G.R. No. L-43044 August 31,

1978 - MARIA C. OLINO v.
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION

G.R. No. L-43096 August 31,

1978 - JOSE Y. LIM v.
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION

G.R. No. L-43536 August 31,

1978 - SOLEDAD R. RUIVIVAR v.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1978augustdecisions.php?id=277 7/8
3/10/2020 G.R. No. L-41767 August 23, 1978 - ROMEO FERRER, ET AL. v. VICENTE G. ERICTA, ET AL. : August 1978 - Philipppine Supreme Co…

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION

G.R. No. L-43539 August 31,

1978 - ODON CRUZ CUETO v.
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION

G.R. No. L-44221 August 31,

1978 - FEDERICO SEVILLA v.
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION

G.R. No. L-45109 August 31,

1978 - ST. MICHAEL SECURITY
SERVICE v. AMADO G. INCIONG

G.R. No. L-45494 August 31,

1978 - BENITO BOLISAY v.
LEONARDO S. ALCID

G.R. No. L-46504 August 31,

1978 - TALENTO GRAGASIN v.
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION

G.R. No. L-47772 August 31,

1978 - INOCENCIO TUGADE v.
COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. L-48168 August 31,

1978 - RODULFO N. PELAEZ v.
LUIS B. REYES

Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1978augustdecisions.php?id=277 8/8