REAL VS BELO G.R. NO. 146224 ; JANUARY 26, 2007 Appeals; Pleadi!s ad P"a#$i#e; P"%#ed&"al R&les ad 'e#(i#ali$ies; '(e "&le is e)pli#i$ i i$s *ada$e $(a$ $(e le!i+le d&pli#a$e %"i!ials %" $"&e #%pi #%pies es % $(e $(e -&d! -&d!*e *e$ $ %" al al %"de %"de"s "s % +%$( +%$( l%/e l%/e" " #%&" #%&"$s $s *&s$ *&s$ +e #e"$ied #%""e#$ + $(e le" % %&"$, &less $(e pe$i$i%e" #%&ld s(%/ $(a$ $(a$ $(e le" le" % %&"$ %&"$ /as /as %3#ia %3#iall ll % leae leae ad $(e Ad*i Ad*iis$ is$"a$ "a$ie ie O3#e" /as %3#iall desi!a$ed desi!a$ed as %3#e"5i5#(a"!e. In the present case, petitioner’s submission of copies of the RTC Decision and Order certied as correct by the Ad Admin minist istrat rative ive Ocer Ocer IV of the RTC is insu insucie cient nt comp compian iance ce !ith !ith the re"ui re"uirrements ements of the the rue# rue# $etit $etition ioner er faied faied to sho! sho! that that the Cer% Cer% of Court Court !as ociay on eave and the Administrative Administrative Ocer !as ociay desi&nated as ocer' in'char&e# The rue is e(picit in its mandate that the e&ibe dupicate ori&inas or true copies of the )ud&ments or na orders of both o!er courts must be certied correct by the Cer% of Court# Sa*e; Sa*e; '(e"e is a*ple -&"isp"&de#e (%ldi! $(a$ $(e s&+se&e$ ad s&+s$a$ial #%*plia#e % a pa"$ *a #all %" $(e "ela)a$i% % $(e "&le "&les s % p"%# p"%#ed ed&" &"e; e; 8(e 8(e $(e $(e %&" %&"$$ % Appe Appeal als s dis* dis*is isse ses s a pe$i pe$i$i $i% % %&$"i!($ ad $(e pe$i$i%e" les a *%$i% %" $(e "e#%side"a$i% % s&#( dis*is dis*issal sal,, apped appedi! i! $(e"e$ $(e"e$% % $(e "e&i "e&isi si$e $e plead pleadi! i!s, s, d%#&* d%#&*e$ e$s s %" %"de"9"es %"de"9"es%l&$i %l&$i%, %, $(is /%&ld /%&ld #%s$i$&$ #%s$i$&$e e s&+s$a$i s&+s$a$ial al #%*plia# #%*plia#e e /i$( $(e Reised R&les % %&"$. * +onetheess, a strict appication of the rue in this case is not caed for# This Court has rued a&ainst the dismissa of appeas based soey on technicaities in severa cases, especiay !hen the appeant had substantiay compied !ith the forma re"uirements# There is ampe )urisprudence hodin& that the subse"uent and substantia compiance of a party may ca for the rea(ation of the rues of procedure# hen the CA dismisses a petition outri&ht and the petitioner es a motion motion for the reconsi reconsidera deration tion of such such dismissa dismissa, , appendin& appendin& thereto thereto the re"uisite re"uisite peadin&s, documents or order-resoution, order-resoution, this !oud constitute substantia substantia compiance !ith the Revised Rues of Court# Sa*e; Sa*e; '(e"e is % #%*pelli! eed $% a$$a#( $(e p%si$i% pape"s % $(e pa"$ies /(e"e $(e :e#isi%s % $(e e' ad R' al"ead s$a$ed $(ei" "espe#$ie "espe#$ie a"!&*e$s.*On *On the the nece necess ssit ity y of atta attach chin in& & posi positi tion on pape papers rs and and adavits of !itnesses, .ection / of Rue 0/ of the Revised Rues of Court re"uires attachments if these !oud support the ae&ations of the petition# In the present case, there !as no compein& need to attach the position papers of the parties since the Decisions of the 1eTC and RTC aready stated their respective ar&uments# As to the adavits, the Court notes that they !ere presented by the respondent as part of the testimony of his !itness 2ire Investi&ator $inca and therefore !oud not support the ae&ations of the petitioner#
Sa*e; Sa*e; 8(a$ s(%&ld !&ide -&di#ial a#$i% is $(a$ a pa"$ li$i!a$ is !ie $(e &lles$ %pp%"$&i$ $% es$a+lis( $(e *e"i$s % (is a#$i% %" deese "a$(e" $(a %" (i* $% l%se lie, (%%" %" p"%pe"$ % *e"e $e#(i#ali$ies. *Truy, in dismissin& the petition for revie!, the CA had committed &rave abuse of discretion amountin& to ac% of )urisdiction in puttin& a premium on technicaities at the e(pense of a )ust resoution of the case# The Court’s pronouncement in Repubic of the $hiippines v# Court of Appeas, /3/ .CRA /04 563378, is !orth echoin&9 :cases shoud be determined on the merits, after fu opportunity to a parties for ventiation of their causes and defenses, rather than on technicaity or some procedura imperfections# In that !ay, the ends of )ustice !oud be better served#; Thus, !hat shoud &uide )udicia action is that a party iti&ant is &iven the fuest opportunity to estabish the merits of his action or defense rather than for him to ose ife, honor or property on mere technicaities# '%"$s; <&asi5:eli#$s; Ne!li!e#e; =%"$&i$%&s Ee$s; Ele*e$s; A pa"$>s $(e%" % %"$&i$%&s ee$ is &aaili! /(e"e $(e #i"#&*s$a#es s(%/ $(a$ $(e "e %"i!ia$ed "%* leai! &*es "%* $(e LPG s$%e ad $a is$alled a$ a pa"$>s as$%%d s$all ad (e" e*pl%ees ailed $% p"ee$ $(e "e "%* sp"eadi! ad des$"%i! $(e %$(e" as$%%d s$alls. *
0 of the Civi Code provides that no person sha be responsibe for a fortuitous event !hich coud not be foreseen, or !hich, thou&h foreseen, !as inevitabe# In other !ords, there must be an entire e(cusion of human a&ency from the cause of in)ury or oss# It is estabished by evidence that the re ori&inated from ea%in& fumes from the ?$@ stove and tan% instaed at petitioner’s fastfood sta and her empoyees faied to prevent the re from spreadin& and destroyin& the other fastfood stas, incudin& respondent’s fastfood sta# .uch circumstances do not support petitioner’s theory of fortuitous event# Sa*e; Sa*e; Sa*e; Sa*e; Eide#e; Ba"e alle!a$i%s, &s&+s$a$ia$ed + eide#e, a"e %$ e&iale$ $% p"%%. *$etitioner’s bare ae&ation is far from sucient proof for the Court to rue in her favor# It is basic in the rue of evidence that bare ae&ations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not e"uivaent to proof# In short, mere ae&ations are not evidence# Sa*e; Sa*e; Sa*e; 8(eee" a e*pl%ee>s e!li!e#e #a&ses da*a!e %" i-&" $% a%$(e", $(e"e is$a$l a"ises a p"es&*p$i% -&"is $a$&* $(a$ $(e e*pl%e" ailed $% e)e"#ise dili!e$issi*i pa$"is a*ilies i $(e sele#$i% ?#&lpa i eli!ied%@ %" s&pe"isi% ?#&lpa i i!ilad%@ % i$s
e*pl%ees. *henever an empoyee’s ne&i&ence causes dama&e or in)ury to another, there instanty arises a presumption )uris tantum that the empoyer faied to e(ercise dii&entissimi patris famiies in the seection 5cupa in ei&iendo8 or supervision 5cupa in vi&iando8 of its empoyees# To avoid iabiity for a "uasi'deict committed by his empoyee, an empoyer must overcome the presumption by presentin& convincin& proof that he e(ercised the care and dii&ence of a &ood father of a famiy in the seection and supervision of his empoyee# Appeals; Pleadi!s ad P"a#$i#e; $ is /ell5se$$led $(a$ a pa"$ /(% d%es %$ appeal "%* $(e de#isi% *a %$ %+$ai a a3"*a$ie "elie "%* $(e appella$e #%&"$ %$(e" $(a /(a$ (e (as %+$aied "%* $(e l%/e" #%&"$, i a, /(%se de#isi% is +"%&!($ &p % appeal; E)#ep$i%s. *As to the a!ard of temperate dama&es, the increase in the amount thereof by the RTC is improper# The RTC coud no on&er e(amine the amounts a!arded by the 1eTC since respondent did not appea from the Decision of the 1eTC# It is !e'setted that a party !ho does not appea from the decision may not obtain any armative reief from the appeate court other than !hat he has obtained from the o!er court, if any, !hose decision is brou&ht up on appea# hie there are e(ceptions to this rue, such as if they invove 568 errors aectin& the o!er court’s )urisdiction over the sub)ect matter, 5/8 pain errors not specied, and 548 cerica errors, none appy here#
Petitioner: Vir&inia Rea Respondent: .isenando B# eo
=A'S $etitioner o!ned and operated the asabe 2astfood sta ocated at the 2ood Center of the $hiippine omen’s niversity aon& Taft Avenue, 1aate, 1ania# .isenando B# eo 5respondent8 o!ned and operated the . 1asters fastfood sta, aso ocated at the 2ood Center of $# Around >9EE o’coc% in the mornin& of
and supervision of her empoyees= that petitioner’s ne&i&ence !as the pro(imate cause of the re that &utted the fastfood stas# In her Ans!er, petitioner denied iabiity on the &rounds that the re !as a fortuitous event and that she e(ercised due dii&ence in the seection and supervision of her empoyees#
SSUE O+ the herein petitioner coud be hed iabe for dama&es as a resut of the re that raHed not ony her o!n food %ios% but aso the ad)acent food stas at the 2ood Center premises of the $hiippine omen’s niversity, incudin& that of the respondent#
CEL: es# It is estabished by evidence that the re ori&inated from ea%in& fumes from the ?$@ stove and tan% instaed at petitioner’s fastfood sta and her empoyees faied to prevent the re from spreadin& and destroyin& the other fastfood stas, incudin& respondent’s fastfood sta# .uch circumstances do not support petitioner’s theory of fortuitous event# henever an empoyee’s ne&i&ence causes dama&e or in)ury to another, there instanty arises a presumption )uris tantum that the empoyer faied to e(ercise dii&entissimi patris famiies in the seection or supervision of its empoyees# To avoid iabiity for a "uasi'deict committed by his empoyee, an empoyer must overcome the presumption by presentin& convincin& proof that he e(ercised the care and dii&ence of a &ood father of a famiy in the seection and supervision of his empoyee# In this case, petitioner not ony faied to sho! that she submitted proof that the ?$@ stove and tan% in her fastfood sta !ere maintained in &ood condition and periodicay chec%ed for defects but she aso faied to submit proof that she e(ercised the dii&ence of a &ood father of a famiy in the seection and supervision of her empoyees# 2or faiin& to prove care and dii&ence in the maintenance of her coo%in& e"uipment and in the seection and supervision of her empoyees, the necessary inference !as that petitioner had been ne&i&ent#
