ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 129128.March 19, 2003]
GUTIERREZ vs. FEBLE
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 19 2003.
G.R. No.129128(Ruben C. Gutierrez and Kalinisan Steam Laundry, Inc. vs. Lope E. Feble and Court of Appeals.)
Before us is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, seeking to annul the Decision and Resolution dated December 17, 1996 and February 24, 1997, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 47096.
The instant controversy arose from a vehicular accident which occurred on February 26, 1990 along Claro M. Recto Avenue, Manila. The mishap involved four (4) vehicles: 1) a passenger jeepney; 2) a Mercedes Benz Sedan; 3) a Mitsubishi Galant Lambda; and 4) an Isuzu Elf pick-up. These vehicles were on the same side of Claro M. Recto, heading westward. The first three vehicles slowed down and stopped upon reaching the intersection at Sergio Loyola Street. The fourth vehicle (pick-up truck) was running fast and thus bumped the rear portion of the Mitsubishi Galant, pushing it forward and causing it to hit the rear portion of the Mercedes Benz Sedan which, in turn, bumped the passenger jeepney. In short, the fourth vehicle hitting the third caused a chain reaction affecting all four vehicles.
Consequently, respondent Lope E. Feble, owner of the Mitsubishi Galant Lambda filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch XII, Manila, a complaint for damages against Ruben C. Gutierrez (driver) and Kalinisan Steam Laundry, Inc. (owner of the pick-up truck), petitioners herein, docketed as Civil Case No. 90-52677. Respondent Feble alleged that Gutierrez was negligent and reckless in driving the vehicle of his employer; and that due to the impact of the collision, he suffered not only physical injuries but also extensive damage to his car amounting to P152,367.00.
Petitioner Kalinisan Steam Laundry, Inc. denied that its driver was negligent.
After hearing, the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"Accordingly, judgment is rendered ordering defendant Ruben Caniete y Gutierrez and defendant Kalinisan Steam Laundry, Inc., jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff the following:
1.P110,800.00 - representing actual damages;
2.P20,000.00 - representing moral damages;
3.P10,000.00 - representing attorney's fees, and
4.cost of suit.
"SO ORDERED."
On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CV No. 47096, affirmed the decision of the trial court. Petitioners herein filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied.
Instead of filing a timely notice of appeal, petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari contending that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the decision of the trial court.
We deny the petition.
We reiterate the well-established rule that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. [1] cralaw Moreover, findings of fact of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court are not to be disturbed on appeal except in the following instances: (1) when its conclusion grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when its findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when its findings of fact are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when its findings of fact are conclusive without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when it manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (10) when its findings of fact are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record. [2] cralaw Petitioners have not shown any of the above instances.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw National Irrigation Administration vs. Court of Appeals, 376 Phil. 362 (1999); Heirs of Marcelino Pagobo vs. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 1119 (1997).
[2] cralaw Nokom vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 140043, July 18, 2000, 336 SCRA 97, 110; Siasat vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129382, January 23, 2002.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
