G.R. No. 57079 - Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

The spouses Antonio Esteban and Gloria Esteban filed an action for damages before the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental against Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT).
The claim stemmed from an accident on the evening of July 30, 1968, where their jeep ran over a mound of earth and fell into an open trench allegedly excavated by PLDT for underground conduit installation.
The spouses alleged that the trench was left uncovered without warning lights or signs, coupled with creeping darkness which prevented Antonio Esteban from noticing it.
Gloria Esteban sustained injuries on her arms, legs, face, and a permanent scar on her cheek, while Antonio Esteban suffered cut lips; the jeep’s windshield was shattered.

PLDT denied liability, arguing the injuries were due to the Estebans’ own negligence. It also contended that L.R. Barte and Company (Barte), an independent contractor responsible for the manhole and conduit system construction, should bear responsibility.
PLDT filed a third-party complaint against Barte, based on their contract which purportedly absolved PLDT of liability for accidents arising from Barte’s negligence or that of its employees.
Barte replied that it was not notified of the incident and that it complied with contractual obligations by installing standard signs, barricades at both excavation ends, and red lights at night to warn the public.

On October 1, 1974, the trial court ruled in favor of the Estebans, ordering PLDT to pay moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, interest, and ordering Barte to reimburse any amount paid by PLDT to the Estebans.
Both PLDT and the Estebans appealed (the latter only as to damages), while Barte did not appeal.

On September 25, 1979, the CA Special Second Division, with Justice Corazon Juliano Agrava as ponente, reversed the trial court, dismissing the Estebans’ complaint and declaring the Estebans negligent, thereby absolving PLDT.
The Estebans received a copy on October 10, 1979, and filed a motion for reconsideration on October 25, 1979.
On January 24, 1980, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration; the resolution was received by the Estebans on February 22, 1980.
On February 29, 1980, the CA received the Estebans’ motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration dated February 27, 1980.
On March 11, 1980, the CA Special Ninth Division allowed the filing of a second motion for reconsideration within 10 days from notice; the Estebans had already filed the second motion on March 7, 1980.
PLDT opposed on April 30, 1980, seeking dismissal of the second motion for reconsideration.
Due to divergent views, CA designated a five-justice division, which on September 3, 1980, reversed the earlier decision of September 25, 1979 and reinstated the trial court’s decision in toto.
PLDT moved to set aside and/or for reconsideration on September 19, 1980, alleging the second motion for reconsideration was filed out of time and asserting the independent contractor rule absolved PLDT from liability.
On May 11, 1981, the CA denied PLDT’s motion and affirmed the trial court decision.

PLDT filed a petition for review on certiorari before the SC, assigning errors on the CA’s allowance of the second motion for reconsideration and the application of the independent contractor rule holding PLDT liable.
The SC reviewed the procedural chronology and found that both the motion for leave and the second motion for reconsideration were filed beyond the prescribed periods under Section 1, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court.
The original CA decision dated September 25, 1979 and the resolution of January 24, 1980 became final and executory on March 9, 1980.
Extensions granted after this finality were deemed null and void, and the subsequent resolution reversing the original decision was likewise null and void.

Procedural lapses aside, the SC found no error in the CA’s original findings that the accident was caused by the negligence of Antonio Esteban.
Key findings included: the jeep swerved abruptly from the inside lane to hit the accident mound; the jeep was allegedly traveling faster than claimed; Esteban failed to use appropriate lights during drizzle; and the mound was visible and known to Esteban who had passed the area many times.
The lack of warning signs was not the proximate cause; rather, the driver’s negligence contributed directly to the accident.
Evidence presented by the Estebans was uncorroborated and partly self-serving; absence of police and medical reports weakened their case.
The Estebans had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, thus barring their claim for damages.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in allowing the filing and consideration of a second motion for reconsideration despite being filed out of time, thus nullifying the finality of its September 25, 1979 decision and January 24, 1980 resolution.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing its original decision and affirming the trial court’s ruling holding PLDT liable, particularly in misapplying the independent contractor rule.