Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CASES REPORTED
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
____________________
_______________
*THIRD DIVISION.
SCRA 274 (1989) and not the strict regulations set in Manchester
v. Court of Appeals, 149 SCRA 562 (1987), will apply.The rule is
that payment in full of the docket fees within the prescribed
period is mandatory. In Manchester v. Court of Appeals, 149
SCRA 562 (1987), it was held that a court acquires jurisdiction
over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee.
The strict application of this rule was, however, relaxed two (2)
years after in the case of Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion,
170 SCRA 274 (1989), wherein the Court decreed that where the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f8ecab6519f068b3c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/17
11/6/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 654
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f8ecab6519f068b3c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/17
11/6/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 654
account the fact that the case was filed before the Manchester
ruling came out. Even if said ruling could be applied retroactively,
liberality should be accorded to the petitioners in view of the
recency then of the ruling. Leniency because of recency was
applied to the cases of Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of
Appeals, 297 SCRA 30 (1998), and Spouses Jimmy and Patri
Chan v. RTC of Zamboanga, 427 SCRA 796 (2004), In the case of
Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Mangubat
(Mactan), 312 SCRA 463 (1999), it was stated that the intent of
the Court is clear to afford litigants full opportunity to comply
with the new rules and to temper enforcement of sanctions in
view of the recency of the changes introduced by the new rules. In
Mactan, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) also failed to
pay the correct docket fees on time.
Same; Same; Where the court in its final judgment awards a
claim not alleged, or a relief different from, or more than that
claimed in the pleading, the party concerned shall pay the
additional fees which shall constitute a lien on the judgment in
satisfaction of said lien.The petitioners, however, are liable for
the difference between the actual fees paid and the correct
payable docket fees to be assessed by the clerk of court which
shall constitute a lien on the judgment pursuant to Section 2 of
Rule 141 which provides: SEC. 2. Fees in lien.Where the court
in its final judgment awards a claim not alleged, or a relief
different from, or more than that claimed in the pleading, the
party concerned shall pay the additional fees which shall
constitute a lien on the judgment in satisfaction of said lien. The
clerk of court shall assess and collect the corresponding fees.
Same; Same; Remand of Cases; Considering that the case at
bench has been pending for more than 30 years and the records
thereof are already before this Court, a remand of the case to the
Court of Appeals (CA) would only unnecessarily prolong its
resolutionin the higher interest of substantial justice and to
spare the parties from further delay, the Court will resolve the case
on the merits.As the Court has taken the position that it would
be grossly
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f8ecab6519f068b3c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/17
11/6/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 654
has been pending for more than 30 years and the records thereof
are already before this Court, a remand of the case to the CA
would only unnecessarily prolong its resolution. In the higher
interest of substantial justice and to spare the parties from
further delay, the Court will resolve the case on the merits.
QuasiDelicts; Negligence; While ending up on the opposite
lane is not conclusive proof of fault in automobile collisions, the
position of the two vehicles, as depicted in the sketch of the police
officers, clearly shows that it was the truck that hit the jeepney.
While ending up on the opposite lane is not conclusive proof of
fault in automobile collisions, the position of the two vehicles, as
depicted in the sketch of the police officers, clearly shows that it
was the truck that hit the jeepney. The evidentiary records
disclosed that the truck was speeding along E. Rodriguez, heading
towards Santolan Street, while the passenger jeepney was coming
from the opposite direction. When the truck reached a certain
point near the Meralco Post No. J9450, the front portion of the
truck hit the left middle side portion of the passenger jeepney,
causing damage to both vehicles and injuries to the driver and
passengers of the jeepney. The truck driver should have been more
careful, because, at that time, a portion of E. Rodriguez Avenue
was under repair and a wooden barricade was placed in the
middle thereof.
Same; Same; Whenever an employees negligence causes
damage or injury to another, there instantly arises a presumption
juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi
patris families in the selection or supervision of his employee.
Whenever an employees negligence causes damage or injury to
another, there instantly arises a presumption juris tantum that
the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the
selection or supervision of his employee. Thus, in the selection of
prospective employees, employers are required to examine them
as to their qualification, experience and service record. With
respect to the supervision of employees, employers must
formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their
implementation, and impose disciplinary meas
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f8ecab6519f068b3c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/17
11/6/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 654
MENDOZA, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review assailing the
May 20, 1994 Decision1 and June 30, 1994 Resolution2 of
the Court of Appeals (CA), in CAG.R. CV No. 19395, which
set aside the March 22, 1988 Decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 8, Manila (RTC) for nonpayment of docket
fees. The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads:
_______________
Or a total of P250,000.00
For damages to property:
In favor of defendant Ponciano Tapales and against
defendant Jose Guballa:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f8ecab6519f068b3c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/17
11/6/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 654
5. Attorneys 15,000.00
fees..
or a total of P44,000.00
Under the 3rd party complaint against 3rd party
defendant Filwriters Guaranty Assurance Corporation, the
Court hereby renders judgment in favor of said 3rd party
plaintiff by way of 3rd party liability under policy No. OV
09527 in the amount of P50,000.00 undertaking plus
P10,000.00 as and for attorneys fees.
For all the foregoing, it is the well considered view of the
Court that plaintiffs, defendant Ponciano Tapales and 3rd
Party plaintiff Jose Guballa established their claims as
specified above, respectively. Totality of evidence
preponderance in their favor.
JUDGMENT
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby
rendered as follows:
In favor of plaintiffs for the death of Ruben Reinoso,
Sr.P250,000.00;
In favor of defendant Ponciano Tapales due to damage of his
passenger jeepney.P44,000.00;
In favor of defendant Jose Guballa under Policy No. OV
09527....P60,000.00;
All the specified accounts with 6% legal rate of interest per
annum from date of complaint until fully paid (Reformina vs.
Tomol, 139 SCRA 260; and finally;
Costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.3
GROUNDS:
A. The Court of Appeals MISAPPLIED THE RULING of
the Supreme Court in the case of Manchester Corporation
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f8ecab6519f068b3c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/17
11/6/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 654
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f8ecab6519f068b3c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/17
11/6/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 654
was, however, relaxed two (2) years after in the case of Sun
Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion,10 wherein the Court
decreed that where the initiatory pleading is not
accompanied by the payment of the docket fee, the court
may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable period of
time, but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period. This ruling was made on the premise
that the plaintiff had demonstrated his willingness to abide
by the rules by paying the additional docket fees
required.11 Thus, in the more recent case of United
Overseas Bank v. Ros,12 the Court explained that where the
party does not deliberately intend to defraud the court in
payment of docket fees, and manifests its willingness to
abide by the
_______________
8Pedrosa v. Hill, 327 Phil. 153, 158; 257 SCRA 373, 377 (1996).
9 Supra note 4.
10252 Phil. 280; 170 SCRA 274 (1989).
11Id., at p. 291; p. 285.
12G.R. No. 171532, August 7, 2007, 529 SCRA 334, 353.
10
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f8ecab6519f068b3c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/17
11/6/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 654
_______________
11
_______________
16Bautista v. Unangst, G.R. No. 173002, July 4, 2008, 557 SCRA 256,
271.
17G.R. No. 130150, October 1, 1998, 297 SCRA 30.
18G.R. No. 149253, April 15, 2004, 427 SCRA 796.
19371 Phil. 393; 312 SCRA 463 (1999).
20Cua, Jr. v. Tan, G.R. Nos. 18145556, December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA
645, 687.
12
13
14
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f8ecab6519f068b3c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/17
11/6/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 654
_______________
15
shows that it was the truck that hit the jeepney. The
evidentiary records disclosed that the truck was speeding
along E. Rodriguez, heading towards Santolan Street,
while the passenger jeepney was coming from the opposite
direction. When the truck reached a certain point near the
Meralco Post No. J9450, the front portion of the truck hit
the left middle side portion of the passenger jeepney,
causing damage to both vehicles and injuries to the driver
and passengers of the jeepney. The truck driver should
have been more careful, because, at that time, a portion of
E. Rodriguez Avenue was under repair and a wooden
barricade was placed in the middle thereof.
The Court likewise sustains the finding of the RTC that
the truck owner, Guballa, failed to rebut the presumption
of negligence in the hiring and supervision of his employee.
Article 2176, in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code,
provides:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f8ecab6519f068b3c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/17
11/6/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 654
16
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f8ecab6519f068b3c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/17
11/6/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 654
_______________
23Id.
24Pleyto v. Lomboy, 476 Phil. 373, 386; 432 SCRA 329, 338 (2004).
25Records, Vol. I, pp. 701702.
26G.R. No. 97412, 12 July 1994, 234 SCRA 78.
17
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f8ecab6519f068b3c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/17
11/6/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 654
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f8ecab6519f068b3c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/17