Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 201526 - RUPERTO ROBLES, petitioner, -versus- CONCEPCION B. MUNAR, respondent.

The Case:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari^[1] filed by petitioner Ruperto Robles, assailing the decision^[2] and the resolution^[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated September 14, 2011 and March 20, 2012, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 89782.

At around 5:13 p.m. of November 6, 2003, Percival Munar was sitting on top of a Kawasaki tricycle when an Isuzu dump truck, driven by Richard Laroza and owned by the petitioner, rammed into six (6) tricycles and four (4) passenger jeepneys parked along the shoulder of the Rizal Provincial Road, resulting in Percival's death.

Respondent Concepcion B. Munar, Percival's father, filed a complaint for damages against the petitioner and Laroza before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 73, Antipolo City.

The petitioner and Laroza, through their counsel, Atty. David Calvario, filed their appearance with ex parte motion for extension of time to file answer. In its order of May 21, 2004, the RTC granted their motion.

On June 7, 2004, the petitioner and Laroza filed a motion to dismiss and cite plaintiff and counsel in contempt. The respondent countered by filing her comment and opposition to motion to dismiss with omnibus motion to declare defendants in default. Meanwhile, Atty. Calvario filed a motion to withdraw as counsel on May 9, 2005. Thereafter, Atty. Edilberto Carmelo, the petitioner and Laroza's new counsel, filed an entry of appearance with manifestation/motion to submit for resolution the pending motion to dismiss without further arguments. 

In its order dated November 7, 2005, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss and cite plaintiff and counsel in contempt for being filed beyond the extended period within which to file an answer. Accordingly, it declared the petitioner and Laroza in default, and set the case for the ex-parte reception of the plaintiffs evidence.

The petitioner and Laroza filed an omnibus motion to lift order of default and to admit attached answer. In its order of January 9, 2006, the RTC denied this motion for violation of the "3-day notice rule' on motions.

The petitioner moved to reconsider this order, but the RTC denied his motion in its order of March 8, 2006. The RTC further explained that the petitioner and Laroza were also remiss in their duty to timely send copies of their omnibus motion to lift order of default on the adverse party. Trial ex-parte  thereafter ensued.

In its decision of March 21, 2007, the RTC ruled in favor of the respondent, and ordered the petitioner and Laroza jointly and solidarity liable to pay the respondent the following amounts: P117,184.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, P150,000.00 as compensation for loss of earning capacity, and P30,000.00 as attorney's fees.

The petitioner filed an appeal before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 89782. In its decision of September 14, 2011, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. 

The CA held that the RTC correctly declared the petitioner and Laroza in default for their blatant failure to file their answer within the extended period. It explained that the petitioner and Laroza, instead of filing an answer, filed a motion to dismiss and cite plaintiff and counsel in contempt. However, this motion was filed only on June 7, 2004, or five days after the expiration of the extended period granted by the trial court for them to file an answer.

The CA further added that the petitioner is bound by the negligence of his counsels. It also found nothing in the petitioner's defense that would warrant a liberal application of the procedural rules in his (petitioner's) favor.

The petitioner moved to reconsider this decision, but the CA denied his motion in its resolution dated March 20, 2012.

The Petition for Review on Certiorari:

In the present petition, the petitioner essentially alleged that the CA erred in affirming the RTC's denial of his motion to lift order of default. The petitioner maintained that there was no violation of the 3-day notice rule on motions because the omnibus motion had been mailed on January 4, 2006. He also claimed that the victim's act of maintaining an illegal tricycle terminal on the side of the road was the immediate and proximate cause of the vehicular accident.

Our Ruling:

Order of default proper 

We point out that the petitioner and Laroza did not file an answer to the complaint for damages, but instead filed a motion to dismiss and cite plaintiff and counsel in contempt. However, this motion was filed only on July 7, 2004, or five (5) days after the last day allowed by the trial court for them to file their answer. As such, the RTC was correct in denying their motion to dismiss, and in declaring them in default pursuant to Section 3,^[4] Rule 9 of the Rules of Court.

The CA correctly affirmed the trial court's denial
of the omnibus motion to lift order of default and
to admit attached answer 

Section 4. Rule 15 of the Rules of Court states that "[e]very written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice."

In the present case, the RTC ruled that the petitioner failed to timely serve a copy of the omnibus motion on the adverse party. In addition, the omnibus motion was submitted to the RTC only on January 9, 2006, or one day before the hearing. The petitioner's claim that the omnibus motion had been mailed on January 4, 2006 is unsupported by the evidence on record.

Time and again, we have held that non-compliance with Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court is a fatal defect. A motion which fails to comply with the said rule is a mere scrap of paper.^[5]

Factual findings binding on this Court 

We do not pass upon the petitioner's claim that the act of the deceased in parking his tricycle on the shoulder of the road was the immediate and proximate cause of the vehicular accident. The finding of negligence on the part of Laroza by the trial court is a question of fact which the Court cannot entertain, since the factual mailers on which the finding of negligence was based are outside our authority to rule upon in a Rule 45 proceeding, in the absence of any showing that these are not supported by evidence before the lower courts.cralaw

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED. The Court of Appeals did not commit any reversible error in its review of the case.

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 9-35.

^[2] Id. at 39-48. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Edwin D. Sorongon. 

^[3] Id. at 57-58. 

^[4] Sec. 3. Default; declaration of. - If the defending party fails to answer within the time allowed therefore, the court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party, and proof of such failure, declare the defending party in default. 

^[5] See Camarines Sur IV Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Aquino, G.R. No. 167691, September 23, 2008, 566 SCRA 263, 270.