Baritua vs. Mercader

12/20/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 350
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Baritua vs. Mercader
*
G.R. No. 136048. January 23, 2001.
JOSE BARITUA and JB LINE, petitioners, vs. NIMFA DIVINA

MERCADER in her capacity and as guardian of DARWIN,
GIOVANNI, RODEL and DENNIS, all surnamed MERCADER;
LEONIDA Vda. de MERCADER on her behalf and on behalf of her
minor child MARY JOY MERCADER; SHIRLEY MERCADER
DELA CRUZ; MARIA THERESA MERCADER-GARCIA;
DANILO MERCADER; JOSE DANTE MERCADER; and
JOSEFINA MERCADER, respondents.
Actions; Courts; Jurisdiction; Generally, the jurisdiction of a court is

determined by the statute in force at the commencement of the action, unless
such statute provides for its retroactive application.—Generally, the
jurisdiction of a court is determined by the statute in force at the
commencement of the action, unless such statute provides for its retroactive
application. Once the jurisdiction of a court attaches, it continues until the
case is finally terminated. The trial court cannot be ousted therefrom by
subsequent happenings or events, although of a character that would have
prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance.
Same; Docket Fees; The Manchester ruling, which became final in
1987, has no retroactive application and cannot be invoked in the subject
Complaint filed in 1984.—The Manchester ruling, which became final in
1987, has no retroactive application and cannot be invoked in the subject
Complaint filed in 1984. The Court explicitly declared: “To put a stop to
this irregularity, henceforth all complaints, petitions, answers and other
similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages being prayed for
not only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer, and said damages
shall be considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any case. Any
pleading that fails to comply with this requirement shall not be accepted nor
admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the record.” (emphasis
supplied)
Same; Pleadings and Practice; Motions for Bill of Particulars; A
motion for bill of particulars becomes moot and academic where, prior to
its filing, the defendant has already filed his answer and several other
pleadings.—We are not impressed. It must be noted that petitioners’ counsel
manifested in open court his desire to file a motion for a bill of particulars.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016074ba597412a9492c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
87
VOL. 350, JANUARY 23, 2001 87
The RTC gave him ten days from March 12, 1985 within which to do so.
He, however, filed the aforesaid motion only on April 2, 1985 or eleven
days past the deadline set by the trial court. Moreover, such motion was
already moot and academic because, prior to its filing, petitioners had
already filed their answer and several other pleadings to the amended
Complaint. Section 1, Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, provides: “Section 1.
When applied for; purpose.—Before responding to a pleading, a party may
move for a more definite statement or for a bill of particulars of any matter
which is not averred with sufficient definiteness or particularity to enable
him properly to prepare his responsive pleading. If the pleading is a reply,
the motion must be filed within ten (10) days from service thereof. Such
motion shall point out the defects complained of, the paragraphs wherein
they are contained, and the details desired.” (emphasis supplied)
Witnesses; Judges cannot be expected to rely on the testimonies of
every witness—in ascertaining the facts, they determine who are credible
and who are not.—First, judges cannot be expected to rely on the
testimonies of every witness. In ascertaining the facts, they determine who
are credible and who are not. In doing so, they consider all the evidence
before them. In other words, the mere fact that Judge Noynay based his
decision on the testimonies of respondents’ witnesses does not necessarily
mean that he did not consider those of petitioners. Second, we find no
sufficient showing that Judge Operario was overzealous in questioning the
witnesses. His questions merely sought to clarify their testimonies. In all,
we reject petitioners’ contention that their right to adduce evidence was
violated.
Common Carriers; By the nature of its business and for reasons of
public policy, a common carrier is bound to carry passengers safely as far
as human care and foresight can provide.—We agree with the findings of
both courts that petitioners failed to observe extraordinary diligence that
fateful morning. It must be noted that a common carrier, by the nature of its
business and for reasons of public policy, is bound to carry passengers
safely as far as human care and foresight can provide. It is supposed to do so
by using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for
all the circumstances. In case of death or injuries to passengers, it is
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless it proves
that it observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and

1755 of the Civil Code.
Evidence; It is a well-settled rule that the trial court’s factual findings,
when affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive and binding, if they are
not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circum
88
stance of significance and influence.—We therefore believe that there is no

reason to overturn the assailed CA Decision, which affirmed that of the
RTC. It is a well-settled rule that the trial court’s factual findings, when
affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive and binding, if they are not
tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of
significance and influence. As clearly discussed above, petitioners have not
presented sufficient ground to warrant a deviation from this rule.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Domingo Lucenario for petitioners.
Mercader & Associates Law Offices for private respondents.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
The Manchester ruling requiring the payment of docket and other

fees as a condition for the acquisition of jurisdiction has no
retroactive effect and applies only to cases filed after its finality.
The Case
Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 1

45 of the Rules of
Court, assailing 2the April 17, 1998 Decision and the October 28,
1998 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No.
40772. The decretal portion of said Decision reads as follows:
“WHEREFORE, upon all the foregoing premises considered, the

DECISION appealed from is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that
the loss of earnings
3
of the late Dominador Mercader is reduced to
P798,000.00.”
The assailed Resolution denied petitioners’ Motion for

Reconsideration.
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 40-54. It was penned by Justice Quirino D. Abad Santos Jr. (Division
chairman), with the concurrence of Justices Ruben T. Reyes and Hilarion L. Aquino
(members).
2 Rollo, p. 71.
3 CA Decision, p. 15; rollo, p. 54.
89
VOL. 350, JANUARY 23, 2001 89

The Court of Appeals sustained the Decision of the Regional Trial

Court (RTC) of Laoang, Northern Samar (Branch 21). Except for the
modification of the loss of earnings, it affirmed all the monetary
damages granted by the trial court to respondents.4 The decretal
portion of the assailed RTC Decision reads as follows:
“WHEREFORE, on preponderance of evidence, judgment is for [herein

respondents] and against [herein petitioners], ordering the latter to pay the
former:
(a) As compensatory damages for the death of Dominador Mercader—

P50,000.00;
(b) For the loss of earnings of the late Dominador Mercader—
P1,660,000.00, more or less, based on the average life span of 75
years from the time of his death who earned a net income of
P5,000.00 monthly out of his business;
(c) Actual damages of P30,000.00 receipted purchases of goods in
Manila; P5,750.00 for the first class coffin and a 15-day wake
services evidenced by a receipt marked Exh. ‘D’; [P]850.00 for the
50 x 60 headstone, receipt marked Exh. ‘E’ and P1,590.00—Deed
of Absolute Sale of a burial lot, marked Exh. ‘F’;
(d) 25% of whatever amount is collected by [respondents] from
[petitioners] but no less than P50,000.00 plus P1,000.00 per hearing
by way of attorney’s fees;
(e) As moral damages—P50,000.00;
(f) As exemplary damages—P30,000.00; and
(g) To pay the costs.”
The Facts
The antecedents of the case are succinctly summarized by the Court

of Appeals in this wise:
“The original complaint was filed against JB Lines, Inc. [Petitioner JB

Lines, Inc.] filed a motion to dismiss complaint, to strike out false-
impertinent matters therefrom, and/or for bill of particulars on the primary
grounds that [respondents] failed to implead Jose Baritua as an
indispensable party and that the cause of action is a suit against a wrong
_______________
4 RTC Decision, p. 31; penned by Judge Tomas B. Noynay.
90

and non-existent party. [Respondents] filed and opposition to the said

motion and an amended complaint.
“In an Order dated December 11, 1984 the trial court denied the
aforesaid motion and admitted the amended complaint of [respondents]
impleading Jose Baritua and alleged the following:
‘(10) The late Dominador Mercader is a [b]usinessman mainly engaged in the buy
and sell of dry goods in Laoang, N. Samar. He buys his goods from Manila and
bringt[s] them to Laoang, Northern Samar for sale at his store located in the said
locality;
(11) Sometime on March 16, 1983, the late Dominador Mercader boarded
[petitioners] bus No. 142 with Plate No. 484 EU at [petitioners’] Manila
Station/terminal, bound for Brgy. Rawis, Laoang Northern Samar as a paying
passenger;
(12) At that time, Dominador Mercader had with him as his baggage, assorted
goods (i.e. long pants, short pants, dusters, etc.) which he likewise loaded in
[petitioners] bus;
(13) The late Dominador Mercader was not able to reach his destination
considering that on March 17, 1983 at Bailey (Bugco) Bridge, Barangay Roxas,
Mondragon, Northern Samar, while he was on board [petitioners] bus no. 142 with
Plate No. 484 EU, the said bus fell into the river as a result of which the late
Dominador Mercader died. x x x.
(14) The accident happened because [petitioners’] driver negligently and
recklessly operated the bus at a fast speed in wanton disregard of traffic rules and
regulations and the prevailing conditions then existing that caused [the] bus to fall
into the river.’
“[Respondents] then filed a motion to declare [petitioners] in default

which motion was opposed by [petitioners]. [Respondents] withdrew the
said motion prompting the trial court to cancel the scheduled hearing of the
said motion to declare [petitioners] in default in an Order dated January 23,
1985.
“In its answer, [petitioners] denied specifically all the material
allegations in the complaint and alleged the following:
‘2. The alleged person of Dominador Mercader did not board bus 142 at [petitioners]
Manila station/terminal x x x as a (supposed paying passenger). There is even no
statement in the complaint that Dominador Mercader (if it were true that he was a
passenger of bus 142 ‘at the [petitioners’] Manila station/terminal’) was issued any
passenger-freight ticket conformably with law and practice. It is a
91
VOL. 350, JANUARY 23, 2001 91

fact of public knowledge that, in compliance with existing rules and laws,
[Petitioner] Baritua, as a public utility operator, issues, thru his conductors, in
appropriate situations, to a true passenger, the familiar and known passenger and
freight ticket which reads in part:
‘NOTICE
Baggage carried at owner’s risk x x x liability on prepaid freight otherwise

declared.
xxx xxx xxx
Whole Fare Paid P_________________

Declared value_______________x x x.
Description of Freight _________________
Signature of Owner.’
3. It is also a fact of public knowledge that [Petitioner] Baritua does not have any
‘Manila station/terminal,’ because what he has is a Pasay city station.
4. [Petitioner] Baritua had no prior knowledge that, on of about March 17, 1983,
and/or previous thereto, the Bugko Bailey Bridge (across Catarman-Laoang road) in
Barangay Roxas, Mondragon, Northern Samar, was in virtual dilapidated] and
dangerous condition, in a state of decay and disrepair, thus calling for the concerned
government and public officials’ performance of their coordinative and joint duties
and responsibilities, to repair, improve and maintain that bridge, in good and
reasonably safe condition, but, far from performing or complying with said subject
duties and responsibilities, the adverted officials concerned, without just cause, not
only failed and neglected to cause such needed repair, improvement and
maintenance of the Bugko Bailey Bridge, on or prior to March 17, 1983, but also
failed, and neglected to either close the Bugko Bridge to public use and travel,
and/or to put appropriate warning and cautionary signs, for repair, improvement,
maintenance, and safety purposes. So that, as a proximate and direct consequence of
the aggregate officials’ nonfeasance, bad faith, negligence, serious inefficiency, and
callous indifference to public safety, that Bugko Bridge collapsed inward and caved
in ruin, on that March 17, 1983, while Baritua’s bus 142 was cautiously and
prudently passing and travelling across the said bridge, as a result of which the bus
fell into the river and sea waters, despite the exercise and compliance by Baritua and
his driver of their duties in the matter of their requisite degree
92

of diligence, caution and prudence, Baritua also exercised and complied with the
requisite duty of diligence, care, and prudence in the selection and supervision over
his driver, contrary to the baseless imputation in paragraphs 14 and 20 of the original
and amended complaints. Moreover, Baritua and his driver did not violate any traffic
rule and regulation, contrary to plaintiffs’ insinuation.
5. Furthermore, [Petitioner] Baritua and his driver have no causative connection
with the alleged death of Dominador Mercader who, according to a reliable source,
was already seriously suffering from a lingering illness even prior to his alleged
demise. Baritua also learned lately, and so it is herein alleged that Dominador
Mercader contributed considerably, to, and/or provided the proximate and direct
cause of his own death, hence, he himself is to be blamed for whatever may have
happened to him or for whatever may have been sustained by his supposed heirs,
vis-à-vis the suit against the wrong party.
6. Baritua and his driver, as earlier stated, did not commit any actionable breach
of contract with the alleged Dominador Mercader or the latter’s supposed heirs.
7. There is no factual nor any legal basis for plaintiffs’ proffered claims for
damages.
II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
8. Based on the preceding averments, plaintiffs have neither a cause nor a right
of action against [Petitioner] Baritua and his driver.
8.1. The allegation that supposedly the ‘x x x [plaintiffs are the compulsory heirs
of the late DOMINADOR MERCADER x x x’ (par. 8, complaint) is too
vague and too broad, as the subject allegation is a bare and pure
conclusionary averment unaccompanied by the requisite statement of
ultimate facts constitutive of a cause or right of action.
8.2. Even assuming arguendo, without however conceding, plaintiffs statement
of a cause of action, the complaint is nonetheless replete with false and
impertinent matters which fit the rule on striking out pleadings or parts
thereof. To mention only a glaring few:
8.2.a. The allegation on exemplary damages x x x is impertinent and immaterial in
the complaint against a supposed employer. For, even theoretically
assuming,
93
VOL. 350, JANUARY 23, 2001 93

without however admitting a negligent act-omission on the part of a

driver, nevertheless, in such a hypothetical situation, the causative
negligence, if any there was, is personal to the wrongdoer, i.e., the

employee-driver, to the exclusion of the employer.
8.2.b. The allegation on supposed ‘minimum life of 75 years’ and on Tie
expects to earn no less than P1,680,000.00 x x x is false, a pure
hyperbole, and bereft of factual and legal basis. Besides, what
jurisprudential rule refers to is only net earning. The law abhors a
claim, akin to plaintiffs’ allegation, which is manifestly speculative,
as it may not exist at all. Furthermore, the questioned allegation in
the plaintiffs original and amended complaints is not preceded by
the requisite statement of definitive facts, nor of any specific fact,
which could possibly afford a rational basis for a reasonable
expectation of supposed earning that could be lost, or impaired.
8.2.c. Likewise, the allegations that allegedly ‘x x x the late Dominador
Mercader boarded x x x Bus No. 142 x x x and that supposedly the
latter had a baggage x x x containing drygoods x x x in which case
[petitioners have] to pay the value thereof in such amount as may
be proven by [respondents] in court during the trial x x x, apart
from being false, are offensive to the rule on concise statement of
ultimate facts. The assailed allegations also contravene Interim
Rule 11, ‘(i)f any demand is for damages in a civil action the
amount thereof must be specifically alleged’ In consequence of this
averment, [respondents] have not yet paid the correct docket fee,
for which reason, [respondents’] case may be dismissed on that
ground alone.
8.3 In violation also of the same Interim Rule 11, regarding the
requisite definitive amount of claim, the allegation on the supposed
funeral expense x x x does not also indicate any specific amount.
So with the averment on supposed moral damage which may not be
warranted because of absence of allegation of fraud or bad faith, if
any, there was, apart from want of causative connection with the
defendant.
8.4 The allegation in paragraph 15 of the original and amended
complaint is also a pure conclusionary averment, without a factual
premise.
94

9. [Petitioner] JB LINE, impleaded in the amended complaint, is

merely a business name and sole proprietorship of defendant
Baritua. As such, JB Line is not a juridical person, nor an entity
authorized by law to sue and be sued, hence, it cannot legally be a
party to any action. With this averment, correlated with that in
paragraphs 4-5 hereof, [respondents’]5 amended complaint is

essentially a suit against a wrong party.”
The RTC, after due trial, rendered the aforesaid assailed Decision.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
As earlier stated, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s

award of monetary damages in favor of respondents, except the
amount of Dominador Mercader’s lost earnings, which it reduced to
P798,000. It held that petitioners failed to rebut the presumption that
in the event a passenger died or was injured, the carrier had acted
negligently. Petitioners, it added, presented no sufficient proof that
they had exercised extraordinary
6
diligence.
Hence, this Petition.
The Issues
In their Memorandum, petitioners submit the following issues for

our consideration:
Did the honorable Court of Appeals (CA) gravely abuse its discretion when
it allowed to pass sub silencio the trial court’s failure to rule frontally on
petitioners’ plea for a bill of particulars, and ignored the nature of
respondents’ prayer in the complaint pleading for an award of—
_______________
5 CA Decision, pp. 2-7; rollo, pp. 41-46.

6 The case was deemed submitted for decision upon the Court’s receipt of
respondents’ Memorandum on November 3, 1999. The Memorandum was signed by
Atty. Lipata Mercader representing Mercader and Associates Law Offices.
Petitioners’ Memorandum, signed by Atty. Domingo Lucenario, had been received by
the Court on October 28, 1999.
95
VOL. 350, JANUARY 23, 2001 95

‘a) P12,000.00—representing the death compensation;

b) An amount to be proven in court, representing actual damages;
c) P1,660,000.00 or more as may be proven during the trial, by way
of loss of earnings;
d) An amount to be proven in court as and by way of funeral

expenses;
e) An amount to be proven during the trial, representing moral
damages;
f) An amount to be determined by this Honorable Court, representing
exemplary damages;
g) An amount equivalent to 25% of whatever amount the plaintiffs
would be able to collect from the defendant but in no case less than
P50,000.00 plus an additional amount of P1,000.00 per hearing as
and by way of Attorney’s fees;’
“II
Did the CA also ignore the fact that the trial court was not paid the correct
amount of the docket and other lawful fees; hence, without jurisdiction over
the original and amended complaints or over the subject matter of the case;
“III
Did the CA likewise arbitrarily disregard petitioners’ constitutional right

to procedural due process and fairness when it ignored and thrust aside their
right to present evidence and to expect that their evidence will be duly
considered and appreciated; and
“IV
In awarding excessive and extravagant damages, did the CA and the trial
court adhere to the rule that their assailed decision must state clearly and
distinctly the facts and the laws on which they are based?”
Distilling the alleged errors cited above, petitioners raise two main
issues for our consideration: (1) whether the CA erred in holding
that the RTC had jurisdiction over the subject matter of
_______________
7 Petitioners’ Memorandum, p. 54; rollo, pp. 312-313.
96

the case, and (2) whether the CA disregarded petitioners’ procedural

rights.
The Court’s Ruling
The Petition is devoid of merit.

First Issue:
Jurisdiction
Petitioners contend that since the correct amounts of docket and

other lawful fees were not paid by respondents, then the trial court
did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. 8
The Court, in Manchester Development Corporation v. CA, held
that “[t]he court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the
payment of the prescribed docket fee. An amendment of the
complaint or similar pleading will not thereby vest jurisdiction in the
court, much less the payment of the docket fee based on the amounts
sought in the amended pleading, x x x.”
Generally, the jurisdiction of a court is determined
9
by the statute
in force at the commencement of the 10action, unless such statute
provides for its retroactive application. Once the jurisdiction11 of a
court attaches, it continues until the case is finally terminated. The
trial court cannot be ousted therefrom by subsequent happenings or
events, although of a character that would 12
have prevented
jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance.
The Manchester ruling, which became final in 1987, has no
retroactive application and cannot be invoked in the subject
Complaint filed in 1984. The Court explicitly declared:
_______________
8 149 SCRA 562, 569, May 7, 1987, per Gancayco, J.

9 Lee v. Presiding Judge, 145 SCRA 408, November 10, 1986; People v. Paderna,
22 SCRA 273, January 29, 1968.
10 Atlas Fertilizer Corp. v. Navarro, 149 SCRA 432, April 30, 1987.
11 Tinitigan v. Tinitigan Sr., 100 SCRA 619, October 30, 1980; citing Republic v.
Central Surety and Insurance Co., 25 SCRA 641, October 26 1968.
12 Ramos v. Central Bank, 41 SCRA 565, October 4, 1971; Dioquino v. Cruz, Jr.,
116 SCRA 451, September 9, 1982.
97
VOL. 350, JANUARY 23, 2001 97

“To put a stop to this irregularity, henceforth all complaints, petitions,

answers and other similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages
being prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer,
and said damages shall be considered in the assessment of the filing fees in
any case. Any pleading that fails to comply with this requirement shall not13
he accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise he expunged from the record.”
(emphasis supplied)
Second Issue:
Petitioners’ Procedural Rights
Motion for a Bill of Particulars

Petitioners argue that the Court of Appeals erred when it passed sub
silencio on the trial Court’s failure to rule frontally on their plea for
a bill of particulars.
We are not impressed. It must be noted that petitioners’ counsel
manifested in open court his desire to file a motion for a bill of
particulars. The RTC
14
gave him ten days from March 12, 1985 within
which to do so. He, however, filed the aforesaid motion only on 15
April 2, 1985 or eleven days past the deadline set by the trial court.
Moreover, such motion was already moot and academic because,
prior to its filing, petitioners had already filed their answer and
several other pleadings to the amended Complaint. Section 1, Rule
12 of the Rules of Court, provides:
“Section 1. When applied for; purpose.—Before responding to a pleading, a

party may move for a more definite statement or for a bill of particulars of
any matter which is not averred with sufficient definiteness or particularity
to enable him properly to prepare his responsive pleading. If the pleading is
a reply, the motion must be filed within ten (10) days from service thereof.
Such motion shall point out the defects complained 16
of, the paragraphs
wherein they are contained, and the details desired.” (emphasis supplied)
________________
13 Manchester Development Corporation v. CA, supra, p. 569.

14 Order dated March 12, 1985; records, p. 168.
15 Records, p. 171.
16 The old Rules of Court prior to the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure contained a
substantially identical provision.
98

Petitioners’ Right to Adduce Evidence

Petitioners also argue that their right to present evidence was
violated by the CA, because it did not consider their contention that
the trial judges who heard the case were biasfed and impartial.
Petitioners contend, as they did before the CA, that Judge Tomas B.
Noynay based his Decision “on certain chosen partial testimonies of
[respondents’] witnesses x x x.” They further maintain that Judge
Fortunato Operario, who initially handled the case, questioned some

witnesses in an overzealous17
manner and “assum[ed] the dual role of
magistrate and advocate.”
These arguments are not meritorious. First, judges cannot be
expected to rely on the testimonies of every witness. In ascertaining
the facts, they determine who are credible and who are not. In doing
so, they consider all the evidence before them. In other words, the
mere fact that Judge Noynay based his decision on the testimonies
of respondents’ witnesses does not necessarily mean that he did not
consider those of petitioners. Second, we find no sufficient showing
that Judge Operario was overzealous in questioning the witnesses.
His questions merely sought to clarify their testimonies. In all, we
reject petitioners’ contention that their right to adduce evidence was
violated.
Alleged Failure to State Clearly the Facts and the Law

We are not convinced by petitioners’ contention, either, that both the
trial and the appellate courts failed to state clearly and distinctly the
facts and the law involved in the case. As can be gleaned from their
Decisions, both courts clearly laid down their bases for awarding
monetary damages to respondents.
Both the RTC and the CA found that a contract of carriage
existed between petitioners and Dominador Mercader when he
boarded Bus No. 142 in Pasay City on March 16, 1983. Petitioners
failed to transport him to his destination, because the bus fell into
_______________
17 Petitioners’ Memorandum, pp. 59-60; rollo, pp. 318-319.
99
VOL. 350, JANUARY 23, 2001 99

a river while traversing the Bugko Bailey Bridge. Although he

survived the fall, he later died of asphyxia secondary to drowning.
We agree with the findings of 18both courts that petitioners failed
to observe extraordinary diligence that fateful morning. It must be
noted that a common carrier, by the nature of its business and for
reasons of public policy, is bound to carry passengers safely as far as
human care and foresight can provide. It is supposed to do so by
using the utmost diligence 19
of very cautious persons, with due regard
for all the circumstances. In case of death or injuries to passengers,
it is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently,
unless it proves that it observed 20
extraordinary diligence as
prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code.
We sustain the ruling of the CA that petitioners failed to prove

that they had observed extraordinary diligence.
First, petitioners did not present evidence on the skill or expertise
of the driver of Bus No. 142 or the condition of that vehicle at the
time of the incident.
_______________
18 Articles 1733, 1755 and 1756 of the Civil Code provide that common carriers
must observe extraordinary diligence. Specifically, these articles respectively read:
“ART. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public
policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the
safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.
xxx xxx xxx
“ART. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care
and foresight of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.
“ART. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to
have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed
extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755.”
19 Article 1733, Civil Code.

20 Article 1756, Civil Code.
100

Second, the bus was overloaded at the time. In21 fact, several
individuals were standing when the incident occurred.
Third, the bus was overspeeding. Its conductor testified that it
had overtaken
22
several buses before it reached the Bugko Bailey
Bridge. Moreover, prior to crossing the bridge, 23
it had accelerated
and maintained its speed towards the bridge.
We therefore believe that there is no reason to overturn the
assailed CA Decision, which affirmed that of the RTC. It is a well-
settled rule that the trial court’s factual findings, when affirmed by
the appellate court, are conclusive and binding, if they are not
tainted with arbitrariness or oversight
24
of some fact or circumstance
of significance and influence. As clearly discussed above,
petitioners have not presented sufficient ground to warrant a
deviation from this rule.
Finally, we cannot fault the appellate court in its computation of
the damages and lost earnings, since it effectively computed
25
only net
earnings in accordance with existing jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED, and the assailed
Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Melo (Chairman), Vitug, Gonzaga-Reyes and Sandoval-

Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
Notes.—While common carriers are required to observe

extraordinary diligence and are presumed at fault, no such
presumption applies to private carriers. (Planters Products, Inc. vs.
Court of Appeals, 226 SCRA 476 [1993])
_______________
21 TSN, January 9, 1989, p. 22; TSN, October 2, 1985, p. 74.

22 TSN, September 13, 1990, p. 49.
23 TSN, October 2, 1985, p. 76.
24 Rizal Surety & Insurance Co. v. CA, GR No. 112360, July 18, 2000, 336 SCRA
12.
25 Metropolitan Transit Corporation v. CA, 298 SCRA 495, November 16, 1998.
101
VOL. 350, JANUARY 23, 2001 101

Del Rosario vs. Bonga
The contract of air carnage generates a relation attended with a

public duty and any discourteous conduct on the part of the carrier’s
employees toward a passenger gives the latter an action for damages
against the carrier. (Korean Airlines Co., Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals,
234 SCRA 717 [1994])
In breach of contract of carriage, moral damages may be
recovered when it results in the death of a passenger. (Sulpicio
Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 376 [1995])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Baritua vs. Mercader

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Baritua vs. Mercader

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Baritua vs. Mercader

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12/20/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 350

86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

JOSE BARITUA and JB LINE, petitioners, vs. NIMFA DIVINA

Actions; Courts; Jurisdiction; Generally, the jurisdiction of a court is

VOL. 350, JANUARY 23, 2001 87

Baritua vs. Mercader

that it observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and

88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Baritua vs. Mercader

stance of significance and influence.—We therefore believe that there is no

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Manchester ruling requiring the payment of docket and other

Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 1

“WHEREFORE, upon all the foregoing premises considered, the

The assailed Resolution denied petitioners’ Motion for

VOL. 350, JANUARY 23, 2001 89

The Court of Appeals sustained the Decision of the Regional Trial

“WHEREFORE, on preponderance of evidence, judgment is for [herein

(a) As compensatory damages for the death of Dominador Mercader—

The antecedents of the case are succinctly summarized by the Court

“The original complaint was filed against JB Lines, Inc. [Petitioner JB

4 RTC Decision, p. 31; penned by Judge Tomas B. Noynay.

90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

and non-existent party. [Respondents] filed and opposition to the said

“[Respondents] then filed a motion to declare [petitioners] in default

VOL. 350, JANUARY 23, 2001 91

Baggage carried at owner’s risk x x x liability on prepaid freight otherwise

Whole Fare Paid P_________________

92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

VOL. 350, JANUARY 23, 2001 93

without however admitting a negligent act-omission on the part of a

negligence, if any there was, is personal to the wrongdoer, i.e., the

94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

9. [Petitioner] JB LINE, impleaded in the amended complaint, is

paragraphs 4-5 hereof, [respondents’]5 amended complaint is

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

As earlier stated, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s

In their Memorandum, petitioners submit the following issues for

5 CA Decision, pp. 2-7; rollo, pp. 41-46.

VOL. 350, JANUARY 23, 2001 95

‘a) P12,000.00—representing the death compensation;

d) An amount to be proven in court as and by way of funeral

Did the CA likewise arbitrarily disregard petitioners’ constitutional right

7 Petitioners’ Memorandum, p. 54; rollo, pp. 312-313.

96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the case, and (2) whether the CA disregarded petitioners’ procedural

The Court’s Ruling

The Petition is devoid of merit.

Petitioners contend that since the correct amounts of docket and

8 149 SCRA 562, 569, May 7, 1987, per Gancayco, J.

VOL. 350, JANUARY 23, 2001 97

“To put a stop to this irregularity, henceforth all complaints, petitions,

Motion for a Bill of Particulars

“Section 1. When applied for; purpose.—Before responding to a pleading, a

13 Manchester Development Corporation v. CA, supra, p. 569.

98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Petitioners’ Right to Adduce Evidence