G.R. No. 119086 - Herbosa vs. Court of Appeals

The case involves petitioners Emmanuel G. Herbosa and Rosemarie L. Herbosa versus various respondents, namely Professional Video Equipment (PVE), a division of Solid Distributors, Inc., and Solid Corporation.
It consolidated two separate actions:

Civil Case No. R-82-4389 involving a breach of contract claim for the failure to record the petitioners’ wedding celebration on video;
Civil Case No. R-83-21786 involving a complaint for damages related to the levy and auction sale of personal properties allegedly owned by Solid Corporation.

On October 11, 1980, petitioners contracted PVE to record their wedding celebration using betamax equipment.
The agreement required PVE to cover the wedding ceremony, reception, and pre-departure activities of the bride, with a downpayment of P1,423.00 and a balance of P1,532.00 payable upon delivery of the finished tape.

PVE’s crew, composed of a cameraman, a VTR operator, and a driver/lightman, arrived early at the bride’s residence and then proceeded to record the wedding at subsequent venues.
Shortly after commencing the recording, a mechanical defect—purportedly a defective transistor—occurred in the video tape recorder but was not promptly detected due to insufficient playback tests.
Despite standard procedures requiring multiple playback tests during the recording, the crew failed to conduct adequate checks, resulting in the majority of the videotaped wedding celebration being damaged.
PVE denied negligence by alleging that it had exercised due care and attributed the malfunction to a fortuitous event; however, it failed to substantiate such defenses with conclusive evidence, notably in its inability to demonstrate proper testing practices.

The trial court initially ruled in favor of the petitioners in Civil Case No. R-82-4389, ordering PVE to pay actual, moral, and exemplary damages, in addition to attorney’s fees.
Complications arose when petitioners moved for execution of the judgment, leading to subsequent petitions for relief from judgment and injunction, as PVE argued non-receipt of notice allegedly due to irregular mailing procedures.
A writ of execution was issued, and an auction sale of levied personal properties was held despite petitioners’ motions to restrain it.

PVE filed appeals in CA-G.R. CV Nos. 15346 and 15093, which were later consolidated by the Court of Appeals with conflicting outcomes:

In CA-G.R. CV No. 15346, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s favorable ruling on the breach of contract claim against PVE;
In CA-G.R. CV No. 15093, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Solid Corporation regarding the auction sale proceedings.

Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration and eventually a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Separately, Solid Corporation, asserting its ownership of the auctioned personal properties, filed a complaint for damages against the petitioners and other parties involved in the levy sale.
The trial court’s summary judgment in Civil Case No. R-83-21786, which ordered the petitioners to deliver sale proceeds to Solid Corporation, became a crucial point of contention.

Petitioners contended that the motion for reconsideration was mistakenly held to be untimely, citing that when the deadline fell on a Saturday (with court offices closed), the filing should have been considered within time.
They also challenged the appellate court’s reversal of the trial court’s findings regarding gross negligence by PVE, arguing that the standard of diligence was improperly recharacterized.
Additionally, petitioners disputed the summary judgment’s basis concerning the ownership of the levied personal properties and the appropriate separation and computation of damages.

The discrepancies between the trial court’s factual findings and the appellate court’s conclusions created a conflict necessitating further review by the Supreme Court.
The evidence showed that the PVE crew had ample time to perform the required playback tests but negligently failed to do so, directly causing the loss of the wedding video.
The conflicting rulings regarding the timeliness of motions and the standards for due diligence formed the crux of the issues raised on appeal.

The appellate court’s decision on the motion for reconsideration relied on precedents concerning the filing deadline falling on a Saturday, an issue which petitioners contested based on more recent Supreme Court orders.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 15346 (related to the breach of contract claim) and affirmed the decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 15093 (regarding the summary judgment on property auction), thereby splitting its judgment to address both lines of issues distinctly.

Whether the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, filed on November 14, 1994, was timely even though the last day for filing fell on a Saturday when court offices were closed.
Whether the reliance on the precedent from Imperial Victory Shipping Agency was applicable in determining the deadline under the circumstances.

Whether PVE, as a division of Solid Distributors, Inc., negligently breached its contractual obligation by failing to properly record the petitioners’ wedding celebration.
Whether the standard of diligence required was that of a “good father of a family” or whether the circumstances warranted a higher, non-delegable duty of extraordinary diligence.
Whether the failure to conduct adequate playback tests and identify the mechanical defect in time constitutes gross negligence and a malicious breach of contract.

Whether the summary judgment rendered in favor of Solid Corporation in Civil Case No. R-83-21786, particularly concerning the ownership of the auctioned personal properties, was proper.
Whether the factual dispute over property ownership was rightly dismissed by the Court of Appeals in light of the uncontested evidence during the auction sale proceedings.