Bautista v. Borromeo, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: On September 15, 1964, a vehicular accident occurred involving a Ford truck driven by Abelardo Bautista and a Volkswagen delivery panel truck owned by Federico O. Borromeo, Inc. The helper in the Borromeo truck, Quintin Delgado, sustained fatal injuries. Borromeo subsequently paid Delgado's widow P4,444 for compensation and funeral expenses under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Borromeo then initiated a suit against Bautista and Roberto Tan Ting, alleging their negligence caused the accident and seeking reimbursement for the amount paid. 2. Procedural History: Borromeo filed suit in the Municipal Court of Mandaluyong, Rizal, on June 17, 1965. Petitioners failed to appear at the July 23, 1965 hearing, leading to an ex parte judgment in favor of Borromeo. Petitioners received notice of this judgment on August 6, 1965, and their motion to set it aside was denied on August 14, 1965. Although their counsel claimed non-receipt of the denial order, petitioners' appeal to the Court of First Instance was dismissed due to late payment of appellate docket fees and deposit of the appeal bond. Subsequently, on October 26, 1965, petitioners filed a petition for relief from judgment in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, which was granted, setting aside the municipal court's decision and ordering a new trial. The respondents appealed this decision. 3. The Petition: The respondents-appellants seek to overturn the Court of First Instance's decision granting the petition for relief. They argue that the petition for relief under Rule 38 was unavailable as petitioners had other remedies, specifically appeal, which they failed to perfect on time due to their own fault. Furthermore, they contend that the negligence of petitioners' counsel in failing to attend the municipal court hearing was not excusable. Finally, they assert that even on the merits, petitioners have no valid defense, as Borromeo's cause of action arises from legal subrogation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, allowing them to recover from the tortfeasor after paying compensation to the deceased employee's widow.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 was the proper remedy. Whether the failure of petitioners' counsel to appear at the hearing constituted excusable negligence. Whether petitioners had a good and substantial defense on the merits.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance, dismissing the petition for relief from judgment. The Court held that the petition for relief was unavailable and that petitioners failed to establish excusable negligence. Furthermore, even on the merits, the cause of action of respondent corporation was valid by virtue of subrogation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Ratio Decidendi
On the availability of the petition for relief: The Supreme Court reiterated the basic precept that a petition for relief under Rule 38 is unavailable when another remedy at law is open to a party, as it is not a substitute for appeal. In this case, petitioners learned of the municipal court's judgment on August 6, 1965, and could have appealed. Although their motion to set aside was denied on August 14, 1965, and they learned of this denial on September 2, 1965, they failed to perfect their appeal within the reglementary period by paying the docket fee and depositing the appeal bond only on September 28, 1965. Their failure to appeal was through their own fault, and the petition for relief filed on October 26, 1965, was beyond the sixty-day period prescribed by Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that the petitioners' failure to receive the notices for the registered mail containing the order of denial did not automatically render the petition for relief appropriate, especially when the appeal period was lost due to their own inaction. On excusable negligence: The Court found the negligence of petitioners' counsel, Atty. Leopoldo V. Repotente, Jr., and his associate, Atty. Lucenito N. Tagle, not to be excusable. Atty. Repotente's excuse for entrusting the hearing to Atty. Tagle due to another case in Quezon City was deemed unworthy of serious consideration, as he had agreed to the July 23, 1965 hearing date in open court after consulting his calendar. It was presumed that his other case was not yet calendared when he agreed to the date. Furthermore, he failed to notify his clients, who also did not appear. Atty. Tagle's excuse of misplacing the case record was characterized as a stereotyped excuse, and the Court noted that a prudent lawyer keeps a separate record of hearings. Even if the record was lost, Atty. Tagle should have attended the hearing and requested a postponement, which he failed to do. Therefore, there was no excusable negligence to support the petition for relief. On the merits of the case: The Supreme Court held that even if the procedural issues were resolved in favor of the petitioners, their case would still fall on the merits. Respondent Borromeo paid compensation and funeral expenses to the widow of its employee, Quintin Delgado, under Section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Section 6 of the same Act provides that if an employee suffers an injury due to the fault of a third party, and compensation is paid by the employer, the employer is subrogated to the employee's right to recover from the tortfeasor. Thus, Borromeo, as the employer who paid the compensation, succeeded to the rights of Quintin Delgado to sue the petitioners for damages. The existence of a contractual relationship between Delgado and the petitioners was irrelevant, as Borromeo's cause of action arose from its legal subrogation to the rights of its deceased employee against the party responsible for the death.
Main Doctrine
A petition for relief under Rule 38 is not a substitute for appeal and is unavailable if another remedy at law, such as appeal, was open to the party. Furthermore, the negligence of counsel in failing to attend hearings or in misplacing case records, without more, does not constitute excusable negligence. An employer who pays compensation to an employee's heirs under the Workmen's Compensation Act is subrogated to the employee's right to recover from the tortfeasor.