G.R. No. 224186 - Spouses Mangaron vs. Hanna Via Design and Construction

Spouses Emilio Mangaron, Jr. and Erlinda Mangaron (petitioners) filed a complaint for damages against Hanna Via Design and Construction - Deepwell Drilling Division (respondent), Power Supply and Equipment Parts (Power Supply), and their company driver, Crestino T. Bosquit (Bosquit).
The complaint was filed under Article 2184 of the Civil Code in relation to Article 2180, alleging vicarious liability of the respondent due to the negligent driving of Bosquit.
The incident involved an Isuzu truck with Plate Number PLM 612 (subject vehicle) owned by Power Supply that bumped and dragged petitioners' Ford Ranger Pick-Up with Plate Number XJZ-830, causing serious physical injuries.
Petitioners were hospitalized for a full month at Davao Doctors Hospital due to the injuries sustained.

After petitioners rested their case, the respondent filed a Motion for Demurrer to Evidence.
Respondent challenged the RTC’s jurisdiction, asserting the complaint was criminal in nature (reckless imprudence resulting in physical injuries) and should have been filed in Davao City where the incident occurred.
The RTC of Malolos City, Branch 11, denied the motion on May 20, 2014, ruling that issues raised were matters of evidence and that the case was civil in nature.
Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied on September 26, 2014.

Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA to challenge the RTC’s jurisdiction denial.
On October 20, 2015, the CA upheld the RTC’s jurisdiction but reversed the denial of the demurrer to evidence, finding grave abuse of discretion by the RTC.
The CA held that Power Supply, as the registered owner of the subject vehicle, was primarily liable, not Hanna Via Design and Construction.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the CA denied on April 14, 2016.

Giving due course to the certiorari petition despite the denial of motion for demurrer being interlocutory;
Setting aside the RTC’s order despite alleged sufficient basis for its denial.

Whether the denial of the motion for demurrer to evidence by the RTC was proper.