Case Digest (G.R. No. 57079)
Facts:
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Spouses Antonio Esteban and Gloria Esteban, G.R. No. 57079, September 29, 1989, Supreme Court Second Division, Regalado, J., writing for the Court.Petition was brought by PLDT against the Court of Appeals and private respondents Antonio and Gloria Esteban, who had sued PLDT in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental (Civil Case No. 8681) for injuries sustained when their jeep hit a mound and fell into an open trench on the evening of July 30, 1968; the trench was alleged to be part of PLDT’s underground conduit excavation. The complaint alleged lack of warning lights or signs and claimed physical injuries and property damage. PLDT answered denying liability and impleaded third-party defendant L.R. Barte and Company (Barte), the independent contractor that did the excavation, invoking a contract clause relieving PLDT of liability for Barte’s negligence.
At trial Barte testified it had installed standard signs, barricades and red lights; PLDT argued respondents’ own negligence caused the accident. On October 1, 1974, the trial court ruled for the Estebans, awarding moral and exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees against PLDT and ordering Barte to reimburse PLDT whatever it paid the plaintiffs. Both PLDT and the Estebans appealed to the Court of Appeals; Barte did not appeal.
On September 25, 1979, the Court of Appeals (Special Second Division, Agrava, J., ponente) reversed and dismissed the complaint, finding the Estebans negligent. The Estebans filed a motion for reconsideration (Oct. 25, 1979) which the Court denied on January 24, 1980. After receipt of that denial, the Estebans filed (Feb. 29, 1980) a motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration and actually filed the second motion on March 7, 1980; on March 11, 1980 the Court (by Agrava) purported to grant leave and allowed ten days to file the second motion. Because of procedural disputes the Court later convened a five-justice division; on September 3, 1980 that division (Zosa, J., pen.) set aside the original September 25, 1979 decision and affirmed the trial court. PLDT moved to set aside that resolution; on May 11, 1981 the Court of Appeals denied PLDT’s motion and affirmed the trial court decision.
PLDT brought the case to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, assigning (1) that the Estebans’ second motion for reconsideration and the Court of Appeals...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the Estebans’ second motion for reconsideration, and the Court of Appeals’ actions based on it, timely and valid so as to revive the Court’s jurisdiction over the case?
- On the merits, did the Court of Appeals correctly hold PLDT liable for the Estebans’ injuries, or did the evidence show that the Estebans’ negligence was the proxi...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)