G.R. No. 172238 - Franco-Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

On January 4, 1998, a Franco Transit bus (license plate AVC 228) collided with a stalled bus and truck wrecker owned by Victory Liner, Inc. along kilometer 63, North Expressway, San Felipe, San Fernando, Pampanga.
The collision resulted in extensive damage to the vehicles and the loss of lives, including those of Manuel Fabian, Rodel Ganelo, Caesar Santos, Michael Figueroa, and the driver of the Franco Transit bus.

On February 11, 1998, Victory Liner, Inc. and the surviving spouses of the deceased (Marites M. Ganelo, Catherine C. Santos, and Ma. Theresa Q. Fabian) filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City.
The complaint alleged that petitioner Maria Liza Franco-Cruz, identified as the registered owner and operator of public transportation (operating under the name “FRANCO TRANSIT”), failed to exercise the due diligence of a good father in selecting and supervising the driver of the bus.

In her Answer, petitioner denied the allegations, asserting affirmative defenses. Notably, she contended that she was not the real party-in-interest because the bus was registered in the name of Felicisima R. Franco, not her.
Petitioner also argued that the proximate cause of the accident was due to the negligence and recklessness of a third party, namely, the driver of a Philippine Rabbit bus.

Despite due notice, petitioner and her counsel did not appear during the pre-trial scheduled on June 5, 1998.
Subsequently, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on June 23, 1998, challenging the order declaring her “as in default.” This motion included her submission of a Certificate of Registration purportedly proving that the bus was registered under Felicisima R. Franco.
The trial court denied her Motion for Reconsideration on July 20, 1998, citing procedural deficiencies such as the lack of an Affidavit of Merit and verification issues.

After respondents presented evidence ex parte, Branch 121 of the Caloocan City RTC rendered a decision on March 30, 1999.

The court found that the negligence of the Franco Transit bus driver was the proximate cause of the accident.
It held that petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of negligence against her pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

Accordingly, the RTC ordered petitioner to pay various amounts in actual damages, lost income, moral damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Various motions followed:

Respondent Ma. Theresa filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Clarification regarding indemnity awards and attorney’s fees proportions.
Petitioner later filed another Motion for Reconsideration, reiterating that she was not the real party-in-interest, but this was again denied due to timeliness issues.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated September 22, 2005, dismissed petitioner’s appeal on the basis that her Motion for Reconsideration was filed on the 18th day after receipt of the trial court’s decision, thereby rendering the judgment final and executory.
Petitioner subsequently filed the present Petition for Certiorari, arguing that her right to appeal had been compromised due to:

The irregularity in filing caused by the negligence of her counsel.
The trial court’s procedural error that precluded her from presenting evidence on her affirmative defenses.

Respondents’ evidence, including testimony from the bus inspector and the Traffic Accident Report by SPO2 Edgardo F. Balajadia, was relied upon to assert that the bus was registered in the name of Marializa Franco-Cruz.
Petitioner, however, supported her claim by submitting the Certificate of Registration showing the bus was registered in the name of Felicisima R. Franco.
The Court noted that Balajadia’s statement lacked sufficient personal or official corroboration, thus questioning the reliability of respondents’ evidence.

The negligence of petitioner’s counsel in failing to file the Motion for Reconsideration within the 15-day reglementary period was recognized; however, the Court identified exceptions where such negligence may result in a denial of due process.
The prejudicial effect of depriving petitioner of the opportunity to present evidence on her affirmative defenses was considered significant enough to warrant relief in the interest of justice.

Whether petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was filed within the reglementary period.
Whether the period for appeal should be computed separately for each party based on the date of receipt of the trial court decision.

Whether petitioner, by presenting a Certificate of Registration indicating the bus was registered in the name of Felicisima R. Franco, sufficiently established that she was not the real party-in-interest and that the complaint should have been dismissed for lack of cause of action.

Whether the ex parte evidence presented by respondents—especially Balajadia’s Traffic Accident Report—was probative, given the issues surrounding its foundation and personal knowledge.
Whether respondents discharged their burden of proving the alleged negligence of petitioner without establishing her ownership of the bus.

Whether the procedural lapse due to petitioner’s counsel failing to file a timely Motion for Reconsideration should be excused under exceptions where due process and justice are implicated.