PARTIES
Petitioners/Team
School Shuttle Service:
·
Serena T.
Bacelonia,
·
Graciano
Bacelonia, Sr.
·
Graciano T.
Bacelonia, Jr., - driver
Respondents/Team
Parents of Jemelee:
·
Sps. Victorino S.
Bolos, Jr. and Olivia P. Bolos
Team Cargo Truck:
·
Simeon Roxas-Cu –
Owner
·
Daniel Carino –
Driver
actions
·
CC No. Q-95-23169
– filed by Bacelonias against Roxas-Cu and Cariño
·
CC No.Q-98-33149 –
filed by Sps Bolos against Bacelonia’s and Team Cargo Truck
nature
Petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45
facts
·
Feb 3, 1993 - VEHICULAR ACCIDENT involving a
tamaraw-type school shuttle service vehicle and a 6 x 6 Isuzu cargo truck along
QC on resulting in the death of Sps. Bolos’ daughter, Jemelee
Bolos.
·
Jemelee was on
board the SCHOOL SHUTTLE SERVICE vehicle
that used to transport her from Marikina City to St. Bridget School in QC.
CC No. Q-95-23169
·
Mar 1, 1995 -
Bacelonia’s filed on Mar 1, 1995 a complaint for damages Team
CT with the RTC of QC
·
Apr 27, 1995
- Bacelonias and their Team Cargo Truck
entered into a COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
that led to the DISMISSAL of the
complaint on Apr 28, 1995 by the trial court.
CC No.Q-98-33149
·
Jan 12, 1998,
Victorino and Olivia Bolos filed a COMPLAINT
FOR DAMAGES against petitioners including Simeon Roxas-Cu and Daniel Cariño
before the RTC of QC
·
Defendants
o Graciano, Sr. and Serena Bacelonia - OWNERS OF THE SCHOOL SHUTTLE
o Graciano Bacelonia, Jr. - DRIVER thereof.
o Simeon Roxas-Cu and Daniel Cariño were the OWNER and the DRIVER of the cargo truck
·
Feb 9, 1998, the
petitioners filed their:
o ANSWER with special and affirmative defenses and COUNTERCLAIM while their co-defendants
o
Simeon Roxas-Cu
and Daniel Cariño, filed their ANSWER with
affirmative defenses and CROSS-CLAIM.
motion to be
dropped as defendants
·
Sep 24, 1999, and
upon termination of the testimony of the second witness for the Sps Bolos in CC
#2, Bacelonias filed a MOTION TO BE DROPPED AS
DEFENDANTS therefrom on the
ground that a COMPROMISE AGREEMENT had
already been entered into by the parties in CC No. 95-23169.
·
The Bacelonias
opined in essence that their co-defendants had explicitly admitted sole responsibility for the vehicular accident
by entering into the compromise agreement.
·
Simeon Roxas-Cu
and Daniel Cariño, filed an OPPOSITION thereto
substantially contending that res-judicata does not obtain
insofar as the present case is concerned, and that, on the contrary, they never
admitted any responsibility for the accident on Feb 3, 1993.
·
Jan 10, 2000 - trial
court resolved to DENY THE MOTION of
the Bacelonias to be dropped as defendants on for lack of merit and scheduled
the reception of evidence of the defense on Feb 3, 2000.
·
Jan 31, 2000, the Bacelonias
filed a MR of the trial court’s order denying their motion to
be dropped as defendants from CC No. Q-98-33149 and set the date of
hearing thereof on Feb 15, 2000 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning.
·
On the same day, Bacelonias
also filed a SEPARATE MOTION TO CANCEL
THE HEARING FOR THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE for the defense earlier
scheduled on Feb 3, 2000 so that their MR, scheduled for hearing on Feb 15,
2000, may not be rendered moot and academic. The motion to cancel hearing was
itself scheduled to be heard on Feb 3, 2000.
·
Private
respondents OPPOSED THE TWIN MOTIONS of
the Bacelonias for lack of merit and argued that the scheduled hearing on Feb
3, 2000 for the initial presentation of evidence of the defense may be availed
of by said Bacelonias for oral argument in support of their MR.
·
During the
scheduled hearing for the initial presentation of evidence of the defense on Feb
3, 2000, the trial court denied the MR of the Bacelonias for lack of merit.
petition for
certiorari to the ca
·
The Bacelonias
elevated the matter to the CA through a petition for certiorari maintaining
that they were not accorded their right to due process when their MR was denied
by the trial court prior to its scheduled hearing on Feb 15,
2000.
·
Mar 6, 2000 PETITION WAS DISMISSED BY THE CA in the
questioned Resolution for being premature and for lack of merit.
·
CA: questioned
order of the trial court was INTERLOCUTORY
and could not be assailed in a petition for certiorari and that,
moreover, RES JUDICATA did
not apply insofar as the claim in CC #2 was concerned.
·
The subsequent MR
was denied by the CA on May 19, 2000.
issue
·
WON the CA
exceeded its jurisdiction when it dismissed the petition in CA-G.R. SP No.
57455.
ruling
·
Sps. Bolos Comment on Oct 9, 2000
which elicited a Reply from the Bacelonias on May 15, 2001. Both parties
filed their respective memoranda on Dec 18, 2001 in
compliance with our resolution dated Oct 8, 2001 after which the case was
deemed submitted for decision.
rule 65 is the
proper remedy not rule 45
·
While the instant
petition is ostensibly denominated as a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 seeking a review of the questioned resolutions of the CA, the
discussion therein exclusively dwells on the sole issue of WON the CA committed
GAD, a question which may be appropriately addressed through a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65.
·
Bacelonias: CA
exceeded its jurisdiction when it dismissed their petition in CA G.R. S.P. No. 57455
allegedly for being premature and for lack of merit, thereby totally ignoring
the basic issue on the alleged violation by the trial court of their basic
right to due process.
·
A petition for
review under Rule 45 is generally limited only to questions of law or errors of
judgment.
·
On the other hand,
the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be availed of to correct errors
of jurisdiction including the commission of GAD amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
·
Consequently, the
instant petition for review may be denied for being an erroneous legal
recourse.
TC DID NOT
COMMIT GAD
·
CA correctly
dismissed the petition for the reason that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying the Bacelonias’ MR on Feb 3, 2000.
·
By GAD is meant
such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as would be equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and
gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to
perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as
where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of
passion and hostility.
rule 15.5 is
mandatory
·
The MR of the TC’s
resolution on Jan 10, 2000 was filed by the Bacelonias on Jan 31,
2000. The date and time of hearing thereof was set by the Bacelonias
on Feb 15, 2000 at 8:30 AM.
·
Rule 15.5:
Section
5. Notice of hearing.- The notice of hearing shall be addressed to
all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing
which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of
the motion.
·
The scheduled
hearing of the said MR was BEYOND the
period specified by the Revised Rules of Court which was not later than ten
(10) days after the filing of the motion, or no later than Feb 10, 2000.
·
Rule 15.5 uses the
mandatory term “Must” in fixing the
period within which the motion shall be scheduled for hearing.
·
A motion that fails to religiously comply with the
mandatory provision of Rule 15.5 is pro forma and presents
no question which merits the attention and consideration of the court.
·
The mandatory
character of Rule 15.5 becomes specially significant in this case, since it is
apparent that the Bacelonias have been engaging in dilatory tactics, an
imputation not without factual basis.
compromise agreement
not binding on the sps bolos
·
This compromise
agreement was already interposed by the Bacelonias as one of the special and
affirmative defenses in their answer to the complaint for damages in CC No.
Q-98-33149.
·
It was no longer legally possible for the Bacelonias
to file the Motion to Exclude on Sep 24, 1999 in CC #2 (actually a MTD the
case against them), based on a compromise agreement that did not even bind the
complainants who were not parties thereto.
·
The private respondents were already winding up the
presentation of their evidence in CC No. #2.
·
Upon the denial of
their Motion to Exclude on Jan 10, 2000, the Bacelonias filed the MR on Jan 31,
2000. They also moved to cancel the scheduled hearing for the
initial presentation of their evidence already scheduled on Feb 3, 2000
ostensibly to give way to oral arguments in support of their MR which, as above
discussed, was pro forma.
·
By their
actuations, it can be conclusively
presumed that the Bacelonias had no
other intention but to delay the proceedings in CC #2.
bacelonias was not
denied of due process
·
Besides, the Bacelonias
cannot validly invoke violation of due process to question the trial court’s
denial of their MR. It should be pointed out that the motion to cancel the
scheduled hearing on Feb 3, 2000 filed on Jan 31, 2000 by the Bacelonias was
itself scheduled to be heard on Feb 3, 2000 which latter date, incidentally,
was previously set by the trial court for reception of defendants’
evidence.
·
The Bacelonias
were present during the hearing on said date to argue on the merits of their
motion to cancel.
·
The private
respondents objected to the motion to cancel the hearing on Feb 3, 2000,
arguing that no compelling reason existed to grant the said pending
motion; they proposed instead that Bacelonias avail of the said setting to
argue their MR.
·
Despite the denial
by the trial court of their motion to cancel, and a subsequent directive for
them to argue their MR on Feb 3, 2000, the Bacelonias
chose to ignore the same. The Bacelonias thus had only themselves to
blame for not having been heard on their MR.
·
What is violative
of due process is the denial of the opportunity to be heard. In the
case at bar, no GAD can be ascribed to the trial court inasmuch as it afforded
the Bacelonias more than ample opportunity to explain their side.
dispositive
·
Petition for review on certiorari is
hereby DENIED.
0 comments:
Post a Comment