Title
Franco-Cruz vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 172238
Decision Date
Sep 17, 2008
Bus collision led to damages and deaths; Franco-Cruz denied ownership, defaulted, and appealed. Supreme Court remanded for due process, citing procedural errors and insufficient evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 172238)

Factual Background

On January 4, 1998, a bus owned by Franco Transit collided with two stalled vehicles owned by Victory Liner at the North Expressway in San Fernando, Pampanga. The accident led to the deaths of four individuals, including passengers and the bus driver. Following the collision, Victory Liner, along with the surviving spouses of the deceased, initiated legal proceedings against Maria Liza Franco-Cruz, asserting she was the operator of the bus and failed to exercise adequate diligence in ensuring the driver's competency.

Pleadings and Initial Proceedings

In their complaint filed in the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, respondents alleged Franco-Cruz's negligence in relation to the incident. Franco-Cruz, in her Answer, not only denied the allegations but asserted affirmative defenses, including her lack of standing in the case and the claim that the driver of the Philippine Rabbit bus was responsible for the collision.

Default Judgment and Subsequent Motions

Franco-Cruz's counsel failed to appear at a scheduled pre-trial, resulting in her being declared "as in default." An ex parte trial ensued where respondents presented their evidence. Franco-Cruz later filed a motion for reconsideration arguing against the default ruling, but the trial court denied her requests, citing procedural deficiencies, including the failure to submit an affidavit of merit supporting her defenses.

Trial Court Decisions

On March 30, 1999, the trial court ruled in favor of respondents, attributing negligence to the driver of the Franco Transit bus and ordering Franco-Cruz to pay substantial damages. Her motions for reconsideration were denied due to being filed late, prompting an appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals dismissed Franco-Cruz's appeal on September 22, 2005, concluding that her motion for reconsideration of the trial court's ruling was untimely and that the trial court's decision had become final and executory.

Legal Issues on Certiorari

Franco-Cruz subsequently filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the finality of the appellate court's decision. The Court observed that certiorari requires the absence of other adequate legal remedies, which her situation did not fulfill as her appeal was dismissed based on procedural grounds.

Examination of Judicial Finality and Due Process

The Supreme Court noted that judgments generally become final by mere lapse of the reglementary period for appeal if no motion for reconsideration is filed. However, it acknowledged that the filing of a motion for reconsideration by one co-defendant did not interrupt the appeal period for another co-defendant. Consequently, the lateness of Franco-Cruz's motion rendered the trial court's decision final against her.

Due Process Concerns

Despite procedural missteps by Franco-Cruz’s counsel, the Supreme Court recognized that the strict application of procedural rules could infringe upon her due process rights. The circumstances of the case indicated that allowing her to present evidence might be crucial, especially as she provided a C

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.