Case Digest (G.R. No. 168240) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In November 2000, respondents Elmer Sunbanun, Georgie S. Tan, Doris Sunbanun and Richard Sunbanun filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Aurora B. Go, her husband Yiu Wai Sang, and Yiu-Go Employment Agency before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 58 (Civil Case No. CEB-25778). They alleged that the Go spouses leased their ground-floor dwelling at 68-F General Junquera Street, Cebu City under a one-year contract, used it as a business office for the employment agency, and thereby increased the risk of loss by fire in breach of the fire insurance policies covering the premises as residential property. Only Aurora Go answered, denying that the agency maintained its office there, asserting that the lease expired in July 1996, and stressing that she was never informed of any insurance contract. She counter-claimed actual damages for lost earnings as she worked in Hong Kong on a no-work-no-pay basis. After the respondents rested, Aurora moved (October 28, 2002) to tak Case Digest (G.R. No. 168240) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Trial Court Proceedings
- November 2000: Respondents Elmer Sunbanun et al. file Civil Case No. CEB-25778 before RTC Cebu, Branch 58, alleging that petitioner Aurora B. Go breached fire-insurance warranties by using leased premises as a business office rather than a residential unit.
- Only Aurora files an Answer with affirmative defenses and counterclaim, denying business use and claiming actual damages for lost earnings.
- October 28, 2002: Aurora moves to take her testimony by deposition upon written interrogatories; RTC grants the motion on November 21, 2002.
- December 1, 2003: RTC deems defendants to have waived presentation of evidence due to delay in deposition and considers case submitted.
- January 26, 2004: RTC renders judgment finding Aurora liable for P200,000 moral damages, P30,000 plus P2,000 per appearance as attorney’s fees, P10,000 litigation expenses, and costs of suit.
- Appeal Efforts and Certiorari Petition
- Aurora’s counsel receives the decision belatedly; RTC denies motion to direct issuance of entry of judgment and later denies Aurora’s motion for reconsideration on April 27, 2004.
- Aurora files a motion for extension of time to file her notice of appeal; RTC denies same on May 12, 2004 and denies reconsideration on June 10, 2004.
- August 13, 2004: Aurora files a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA); December 8, 2004: CA dismisses petition for procedural defects (verification, service, PTR/IBP numbers, attachments).
- Aurora moves for reconsideration; April 8, 2005: CA denies motion, affirming dismissal for strict non-compliance.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to relax procedural deficiencies in Aurora Go’s certiorari petition in the interest of justice.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)