Title
Cerezo vs. Tuazon
Case
G.R. No. 141538
Decision Date
Mar 23, 2004
Bus owner Hermana Cerezo held liable for damages after default judgment; appeals denied as employee’s negligence under Civil Code Article 2180 deemed sufficient for liability.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-31683)

Facts:

  • Accident and complaint
    • June 26, 1993: Country Bus (plate NYA 241) collided with Tuazon’s tricycle (plate TC RV 126) in Pampanga; Tuazon suffered serious injuries and disability.
    • October 1, 1993: Tuazon filed Civil Case No. 7415 for damages against Hermana R. Cerezo (bus owner), Juan Cerezo (spouse), and driver Danilo A. Foronda.
  • Summons and participation
    • Initial summons to the Cerezo spouses at Makati unserved; alias summons served at Tarlac on April 20, 1994; counsel’s angry reaction recorded.
    • The Cerezo spouses and their counsel filed comments, motion for bill of particulars, and appeared in hearings.
  • Default and trial court proceedings
    • August 30, 1994: Trial court granted Tuazon’s pauper status; denied new‐summons motion; directed resolution of bill of particulars.
    • November 14, 1994: Spouses failed to file answer; January 27, 1995: default; February 6, 1995: default confirmed; Tuazon presented evidence.
  • Decision and damages
    • May 30, 1995: Trial court held Mrs. Cerezo liable under Article 2180 (employer’s liability for employee negligence); did not rule on Foronda for want of summons.
    • Awarded P69,485.35 (medical), P39,921.00 (tricycle repair), P43,300.00 (loss of earnings), P20,000.00 (moral damages), plus costs.
  • Post-judgment motions and appeals
    • July 10, 1995: Petition for relief from judgment (Rule 38) filed; denied March 4, 1998; certiorari (Rule 65) and SC Rule 45 petition also denied.
    • July 6, 1999: Rule 47 annulment petition filed; denied by CA on October 21, 1999; motion for reconsideration denied January 20, 2000.

Issues:

  • Jurisdiction and due process
    • Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction for not summoning driver Foronda, an alleged indispensable party.
    • Whether absence of service on Foronda voids findings used to hold Mrs. Cerezo liable.
  • Procedural grounds and remedy
    • Whether the CA erred in treating the petition as based on extrinsic fraud rather than lack of jurisdiction.
    • Whether Mrs. Cerezo waived jurisdictional defects by voluntary appearance and reliance on settlement.
    • Whether failure to reserve the right to sue in the criminal case affects civil jurisdiction.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.