Heirs of Late Ruben Reinoso vs. C.A

8/13/2019 Heirs of Late Ruben Reinoso vs. C.A

1/5

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 116121 July 18, 2011

THE HEIRS OF THE LATE RUBEN REINOSO, SR., r!r"#$% &y Ru R'#o"oJr.,Petitioners,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, PONCIANO TAPALES, JOSE GUBALLA, (#% FIL)RITERSGUARANT* ASSURANCE CORPORATION,**Responent.

D ! " I S I O N

MEN+OA, 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 asiethe 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 reas5

IN VI!6 O7 88 TH! 7OR!0OIN0, the ecision appeale fro3 is S!T SID! an R!V!RS!Dan the co3plaint in this case is orere DISMISS!D.

No costs pronounce3ent.

SO ORD!R!D.

The co3plaint for a3a%es arose fro3 the collision of a passen%erjeepneyan a truc4 ataroun 95(( o:cloc4 in the evenin% of une )+, )9 alon% !. Rori%ue; venue, 70"? uner Polic& Nu3ber OV/(1'9.

On March '', )22, the RT" renere a ecision in favor of the petitioners an a%ainst0uballa. The ecision in part, reas5

In favor of herein plaintiffs an a%ainst efenant ose 0uballa5

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

'. 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 ateath ha ten >)(? &ears lifeeBpectanc&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

)'(,(((.((

-. Mortuar&, Meical A funeral eBpenses an all incientaleBpenses in the $a4e in servin% those $ho conole@@@@ )1,(((.((

+. Moral a3a%es @@@@@@@@@@@@@@.. 1(,(((.((

1. !Be3plar& a3a%es @@@@@@@@@@@@@ '1,(((.((

C. 8iti%ation eBpenses @@@@@@@@@@@@@. )1,(((.((

9. ttorne&:s fees @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ '1,(((.((

Or a total ofP '1(,(((.((

7or a3a%es to propert&5

In favor of efenant Ponciano Tapales an a%ainst efenant ose 0uballa5

). ctual a3a%es for repair is alrea& a$are toefenant/cross/clai3ant Ponciano Tapales b& #r. ,RT"/Malolos, #ulacan >Vie5 !Bh. )/0/Tapales? hence,cannot recover t$ice.

'. "o3pensator& a3a%es >earnin%s at P )1(.(( per a&?an for t$o >'? 3onths =eepne& sta&e at the repairshop@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@.

P ,(((.((

-.Moral a3a%es @@@@@@@@@...

)(,(((.((

+.!Be3plar& a3a%es @@@@@@@.

)(,(((.(

(1.

ttorne&:s fees@@@@@@@@@@)1,(((.((
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt1


2/5

or a total ofP ++,(((.((

Ener the -r part& co3plaint a%ainst -r part& efenant 7il$riters 0uarant& ssurance"orporation, the "ourt hereb& reners =u%3ent in favor of sai -r part& plaintiff b& $a&of -r part& liabilit& uner polic& No. OV/(1'9 in the a3ount of P 1(,(((.(( unerta4in%plus P )(,(((.(( as an for attorne&:s fees.

7or all the fore%oin%, it is the $ell consiere vie$ of the "ourt that plaintiffs, efenantPonciano Tapales an -r Part& plaintiff ose 0uballa establishe their clai3s as specifie

above, respectivel&. Totalit& of evience preponerance in their favor.

E D 0 M ! N T

6H!R!7OR!, in vie$ of the fore%oin%, =u%3ent is hereb& renere as follo$s5

In favor of plaintiffs for the eath of Ruben Reinoso,Sr@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@.P'1(,(((.((

In favor of efenant Ponciano Tapales ue to a3a%e of his passen%er =eepne&@@@@. P++,(((.((

In favor of efenant ose 0uballa uner Polic& No. OV/(1'9@@@@@@@@@@@@@ PC(,(((.((

ll the specifie accounts $ith CF le%al rate of interest per annu3 fro3 ate of co3plaintuntil full& pai >Refor3ina vs. To3ol, )- S"R 'C( an finall&

"osts of suit.

SO ORD!R!D.-

On appeal, the ", in its Decision ate Ma& '(, )+, set asie an reverse the RT"ecision an is3isse the co3plaint on the %roun of non/pa&3ent of oc4et feespursuant to the octrine lai o$n in Manchester v. CA.+In aition, the " rule thatsince prescription ha set in, petitioners coul no lon%er pa& the reGuire oc4et fees.1

Petitioners file a 3otion for reconsieration of the " ecision but it $as enie in a

resolution ate une -(, )+.C

Hence, this appeal, anchore on the follo$in%

0ROENDS5

. The "ourt of ppeals MISPP8I!D TH! RE8IN0 of the Supre3e "ourt in theof Manchester Corporation vs. Court of Appealsto this case.

#. The issue on the specification of the a3a%es appearin% in the pra&er o"o3plaint $as N!V!R P8"!D IN ISSE! # N O7 TH! PRTI!S IN TH! "OEORI0IN >R!0ION8 TRI8 "OERT? NOR IN TH! "OERT O7 PP!8S.

". The issues of the case revolve aroun the 3ore substantial issue as tne%li%ence of the private responents an their culpabilit& to petitioners.9

The petitioners ar%ue that the rulin% in Manchestershoul not have been a

retroactivel& in this case, since it $as file prior to the pro3ul%atiothe Manchesterecision in )29. The& plea that thou%h this "ourt state that failustate the correct a3ount of a3a%es $oul lea to the is3issal of the co3plaintoctrine shoul be applie prospectivel&.

Moreover, the petitioners assert that at the ti3e of the filin% of the co3plaint in )the& $ere not certain of the a3ount of a3a%es the& $ere entitle to, becausa3ount of the lost inco3e $oul still be finall& eter3ine in the course of the trial ocase. The& clai3 that the =urisiction of the trial court re3ains even if there $as failpa& the correct filin% fee as lon% as the correct a3ount $oul be pai subseGuentl&.

7inall&, the petitioners stress that the alle%e efect $as never put in issue either RT" or in the ".

The "ourt fins 3erit in the petition.

The rule is that pa&3ent in full of the oc4et fees $ithin the prescribe per3anator&.2In Manchester v. Court of Appeals,it $as hel that a court ac

=urisiction over an& case onl& upon the pa&3ent of the prescribe oc4et fee. The application of this rule $as, ho$ever, relaBe t$o >'? &ears after in the case oInsurance ffice! "t#. v. Asuncion,)($herein the "ourt ecree that $here the initpleain% is not acco3panie b& the pa&3ent of the oc4et fee, the court 3a& pa&3ent of the fee $ithin a reasonable perio of ti3e, but in no case be&onapplicable prescriptive or re%le3entar& perio. This rulin% $as 3ae on the pre3isethe plaintiff ha e3onstrate his $illin%ness to abie b& the rules b& pa&inaitional oc4et fees reGuire.))Thus, in the 3ore recent case of $nite# verseasv. Ros,)'the "ourt eBplaine that $here the part& oes not eliberatel& inten to ethe court in pa&3ent of oc4et fees, an 3anifests its $illin%ness to abie b& the rulpa&in% aitional oc4et fees $hen reGuire b& the court, the liberal octrine enuncin Sun Insurance ffice! "t#., an not the strict re%ulations set in Manchester, $ill ap

has been on recor that the "ourt, in several instances, allo$e the relaBation of theon non/pa&3ent of oc4et fees in orer to affor the parties the opportunit& toventilate their cases on the 3erits. In the case of "a Salette Colle'e v. ilotin!)-the state5
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt13


3/5

Not$ithstanin% the 3anator& nature of the reGuire3ent of pa&3ent of appellate oc4etfees, $e also reco%ni;e that its strict application is Gualifie b& the follo$in%5 first, failureto pa& those fees $ithin the re%le3entar& perio allo$s onl& iscretionar&, not auto3atic,is3issal secon#!such po$er shoul be use b& the court in con=unction $ith its eBerciseof soun iscretion in accorance $ith the tenets of =ustice an fair pla&, as $ell as $ith a%reat eal of circu3spection in consieration of all attenant circu3stances.)+

6hile there is a cr&in% nee to unclo% court oc4ets on the one han, there is, on theother, a %reater e3an for resolvin% %enuine isputes fairl& an eGuitabl&,)1for it is farbetter to ispose of a case on the 3erit $hich is a pri3orial en, rather than on atechnicalit& that 3a& result in in=ustice.

In this case, it cannot be enie that the case $as liti%ate before the RT" an sai trialcourt ha alrea& renere 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

propiois3isse the case for sai reason.

"onsierin% the fore%oin%, there is a nee to suspen the strict application of the rules sothat the petitioners $oul be able to full& an finall& prosecute their clai3 on the 3erits atthe appellate level rather than fail to secure =ustice on a technicalit&, for, inee, the%eneral ob=ective of proceure is to facilitate the application of =ustice to the rival clai3sof contenin% parties, bearin% al$a&s in 3in that proceure is not to hiner but topro3ote the a3inistration of =ustice.)C

The "ourt also ta4es into account the fact that the case $as file beforethe Manchesterrulin% ca3e out. !ven if sai rulin% coul be applie retroactivel&,

liberalit& shoul be accore 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)9an Spouses +immy an# atri Chan v. RTC of ,amboan'a. )2In the caseof Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Man'ubat (Mactan),)it $as state thatthe intent 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%esintrouce b& the ne$ rules. In Mactan!the Office of the Solicitor 0eneral >OS0? alsofaile to pa& the correct oc4et fees on ti3e.

6e hel in another case5

B B B It bears stressin% that the rules of proceure are 3erel& tools esi%ne to facilitatethe attain3ent of =ustice. The& $ere conceive an pro3ul%ate to effectivel& ai thecourt in the ispensation of =ustice. "ourts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules,shorn of =uicial iscretion. In renerin% =ustice, courts have al$a&s been, as the& ou%ht to

be, conscientiousl& %uie b& the nor3 that, on the balance, technicalities ta4e abac4seat a%ainst substantive ri%hts, an not the other $a& aroun. Thus, if the applicationof the Rules $oul ten to frustrate rather than pro3ote =ustice, it is al$a&s $ithin thepo$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 paithe correct pa&able oc4et fees to be assesse b& the cler4 of court $hich shall consa lien on the =u%3ent pursuant to Section ' of Rule )+) $hich provies5

S!". '. 7ees in lien. J 6here the court in its final =u%3ent a$ars a clai3 not alle%ea relief ifferent fro3, or 3ore than that clai3e in the pleain%, the part& conceshall pa& the aitional fees $hich shall constitute a lien on the =u%3ent in satisfactsai lien. The cler4 of court shall assess an collect the corresponin% fees.

s the "ourt has ta4en the position that it $oul be %rossl& un=ust if petitioners: c$oul be is3isse on a strict application of the Manchester octrine, the appro

action, uner orinar& circu3stances, $oul be for the "ourt to re3an the case t". "onsierin%, ho$ever, that the case at bench has been penin% for 3ore th&ears an the recors thereof are alrea& before this "ourt, a re3an of the case t" $oul onl& unnecessaril& prolon% its resolution. In the hi%her interest of substa

=ustice an to spare the parties fro3 further ela&, the "ourt $ill resolve the case o3erits.

The facts are be&on ispute. Reinoso, thejeepneypassen%er, ie as a result ocollision of ajeepneyan a truc4 on une )+, )9 at aroun 95(( o:cloc4 in the evalon% !. Rori%ue; venue,


4/5

Havin% in 3in the fore%oin% provision of la$, this "ourt is convince of the veracit& ofthe version of the passen%er =eepne& river le=anro Santos, >plaintiffs: an Tapales:$itness? that $hile runnin% on lane No. + $est$ar boun to$ars Orti%as venue atbet$een -(/+( 43s. per hour >C-/C+ tsn, an. C, )2+? the san A %ravel truc4 fro3 theopposite irection riven b& Mariano 0eroni3o, the heali%hts of $hich the for3er haseen $hile still at a istance of about -(/+( 3eters fro3 the $ooen barricae astrielanes ) an ', upon reachin% sai $ooen bloc4 suenl& s$erve to the left into lanes -an + at hi%h spee napa4abilis po n% atin% n% truc4. >' tsn, Sept. 'C, )21? in theprocess hittin% the3 >eepne& passen%er? at the left sie up to $here the reserve tire $asin an obliGue 3anner pahilis >19 tsn, Sept. 'C, )21?. The =eepne& after it $as bu3peb& the truc4 ue to the stron% i3pact $as thro$n restin% on its ri%ht sie $hile the leftsie $as on top of the #an%4eta >sie $al4?. The passen%ers of the =eepne& an its river

$ere in=ure incluin% t$o passen%ers $ho ie. The left sie of the =eepne& suffereconsierable a3a%e as seen in the picture >!Bhs. + A 1/Tapales, pa%es --)/--', recors?ta4en $hile at the repair shop.

The "ourt is convince of the narration of Santos to the effect that the %ravel A santruc4 $as runnin% in hi%h spee on the %oo portion of !. Rori%ue; venue >lane ) A '?before the $ooen barricae an >havin% in 3in that it ha =ust elivere its loa at the"orinthian 0arens? so that $hen suenl& confronte $ith the $ooen obstacle before itha to avoi the sa3e in a 3anner of a refleB reaction or 4nee/=er4 response b& forth$iths$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 saibu3pin%, 3ovin% at 3oerate spee thereon since lane No. - $as then so3e$hat rou%hbecause bein% repaire also accorin% to Monalia $ho has no reason to prevaricatebein% herself one of those seriousl& in=ure. The narration of Santos an Monalia areconvincin% an consistent in epictin% the true facts of the case untainte b& vacillation

an therefore, $orth& to be relie upon. Their stor& is forfeite an confir3e b& thes4etch ra$n b& the investi%atin% officer Pfc. 7. 3aba, Traffic Division, NPD,


5/5

leaves the co3poun li4e the oil, $ater, bra4es, %asoline, horn > tsn, ul& )9, )2C? anthat 0eroni3o ha been rivin% for hi3 so3eti3e in )9C until the collision in liti%ationca3e about >1/C tsn, ibi? that $henever his truc4s %ets out of the co3poun to 3a4eeliveries, it is al$a&s acco3panie $ith t$o >'? helpers >)C/)9 tsn, ibi?. This $as all$hich he consiere as selection an supervision in co3pliance $ith the la$ to freehi3self fro3 an& responsibilit&. This "ourt then cannot consier the fore%oin% aseGuivalent to an eBercise of all the care of a %oo father of a fa3il& in the selection ansupervision of his river Mariano 0eroni3o. '1

)HEREFORE, the petition is 0RNT!D. The Ma& '(, )+ Decision an une -(, )+Resolution of the "ourt of ppeals are RE-ERSE+an S!T SID! an the March '', )22Decision of the Re%ional Trial "ourt, #ranch 2, Manila, is R!INSTT!D.

SO ORD!R!D.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_116121_2011.html#fnt25

Documents

Heirs of Late Ruben Reinoso vs. C.A