Facts:

The case in question is Felicidad Aguilar vs. Erlinda Q. Chan, Isabel Q. Jueco, Fortunato Jueco, and Melanio Queyangco, adjudicated under G.R. No. L-29688, and decided on October 9, 1986. Felicidad Aguilar (the plaintiff-appellee) filed a complaint, Civil Case No. 5611, against four defendants: Erlinda Q. Chan, owner of an International Truck (Plate No. TPU 9916, ’59), Isabel Q. Jueco, the operator of "Forisa" buses, Fortunato Jueco, the manager and husband of Isabel Q. Jueco, and Melanio Queyangco, the truck driver. The case arose from a vehicular accident involving a "Forisa" bus, where Aguilar sustained physical injuries leading to a surgical operation. The incident occurred while Aguilar was a passenger on the bus en route to San Andres Subdivision when the vehicle overturned and caught fire at the intersection of Vermont and Singalong streets. The lower court initially rendered a default judgment in favor of Aguilar after the defendants-appellants failed

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Plaintiff-Appellee Felicidad Aguilar filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 5611) seeking actual, moral, and exemplary damages arising from a vehicular accident.
• The accident occurred while the plaintiff was riding a bus bearing the mark “Forisa,” operated under defendants’ franchise interests.

Parties Involved

• Plaintiff-Appellee:
• Felicidad Aguilar, who suffered significant injuries and consequent economic losses.
• Defendants:
• Erlinda Q. Chan – Owner of the International Truck bearing Plate No. TPU 9916, involved in the transportation business.
• Isabel Q. Jueco – Operator of the “Forisa” buses.
• Fortunato Jueco – Husband of Isabel Q. Jueco and manager of the “Forisa” buses and the transportation business of Erlinda Q. Chan.
• Melanio Queyangco – Driver of the truck involved in the vehicular accident. (Note: Queyangco was never served with summons and is not considered an appellant.)

Procedural History

• The three defendants—Erlinda Q. Chan, Isabel Q. Jueco, and Fortunato Jueco—filed their answers but failed to appear at the scheduled pre-trial.
• Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 20 of the Rules of Court, their nonappearance led to a declaration of their default.
• Plaintiff was permitted to present her evidence ex-parte, resulting in a default judgment awarding:
• Moral and exemplary damages amounting to ₱5,000.00.
• Attorney’s fees amounting to ₱750.00.
• Payment of court costs.
• Defendants-Appellants later filed “petitions for relief” (which were essentially motions for a new trial based on excusable negligence) that were denied by the trial court, prompting their appeal.
• There were notable irregularities in the service of the copy of the default judgment:
• Counsel for defendant-appellant Erlinda Chan was not served a copy and only learned of the judgment via Fortunato Jueco.
• Counsel for defendants-appellants Isabel and Fortunato Jueco received a copy just ten days before filing a petition for relief.
• Even the counsel for the plaintiff-appellee testified to receiving the copy after the filing of the petitions.

Evidence of the Accident and Resulting Injuries

• The plaintiff boarded a “Forisa” bus, owned by defendant-appellant Erlinda Chan, destined for San Andres Subdivision.
• The bus overturned and caught fire at the intersection of Vermont and Singalong streets.
• Plaintiff suffered physical injuries, specifically:
• Fracture of the distal radius and ulna on the right forearm.
• Laceration of the right ear.
• These injuries necessitated a surgical operation at the Philippine General Hospital and resulted in:
• Physical pain and mental agony.
• Permanent disability of the right forearm.
• The inability to continue her work as a piece contractor or in her home-based sewing work, which further implied economic loss.

Exclusion of a Defendant

• Defendant Melanio Queyangco, although included in the initial complaint, was not served with summons; hence, jurisdiction over his person was never acquired.

Issue:

Whether the petitions for relief—effectively motions for a new trial based on excusable negligence—should have been granted given the procedural irregularities in serving the copy of the default judgment.

• The discrepancy in the timing and method of service (differing experiences among the defendants’ counsel and even the plaintiff’s counsel) raises questions about due process but does not automatically entitle the defendants to relief.

Whether the award of damages, as rendered by the lower court, is proper despite the plaintiff’s claim of higher actual damages.

• The lower court awarded a fixed sum based on the evidence presented, and since the plaintiff did not appeal for additional damages, the award should stand in accordance with existing precedents.

The impact of the non-service and consequent lack of jurisdiction over defendant Melanio Queyangco on the overall judgment.

• Whether his inclusion as a defendant should affect the validity of the default judgment rendered against the other parties.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)