Estrada v. Consolacion
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Gregorio Estrada filed a complaint for damages against private respondents Corazon Ramirez Uy (owner) and Lucio Galaura (driver) of an AC jeep, alleging breach of their obligations as a common carrier due to the death of his wife, Simeona Estrada. The wife was a passenger in the jeep when it bumped a Ford pick-up truck, resulting in injuries that led to her death. Petitioner claimed the respondents failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family and acted in gross and evident bad faith. Procedural History: Respondents filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the accident was caused by the negligence of third-party drivers of two pick-up trucks, over whom they had no control. They submitted a sketch of the accident, an investigator's affidavit, sworn statements of the pick-up drivers, and the sworn statement of their own driver, arguing that these documents established prima facie that the accident was a caso fortuito and their driver was free of contributory negligence. Petitioner opposed the motion, invoking the presumption of fault against common carriers in case of passenger death. The respondent Judge granted the motion for summary judgment, decreeing judgment for the defendants on the issue of liability, to be ascertained by trial solely on the amount of damages. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with prohibition, assailing the respondent Judge's order for allegedly failing to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it was based, thus violating the Constitution and the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge erred in granting a summary judgment when there existed a genuine issue of material fact regarding the common carrier's liability. Whether the respondent Judge's order granting summary judgment, which did not state the facts and law on which it was based, was a valid judgment.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari with prohibition is dismissed, without special pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of summary judgment and genuine issues of fact: The Court reiterated that a summary judgment is a device for weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage, avoiding expense and loss of time. The purpose of the hearing is not to try the issue but to determine if there is a meritorious issue to be tried. Summary judgment must be denied if triable issues of fact exist. The test is whether the pleadings, affidavits, and exhibits are sufficient to overcome the opposing papers and justify a finding as a matter of law that there is no defense or the claim is clearly meritorious. In this case, the respondents, as defendants, submitted affidavits to prove that the accident was due to the fault or negligence of third parties, thus constituting a caso fortuito and that their driver was free of concurrent or contributory fault. The petitioner failed to submit opposing affidavits to rebut this proof, leaving the defense of caso fortuito unrebutted. Therefore, the respondent Judge did not act arbitrarily in finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding the carrier's liability, as the petitioner failed to present evidence to controvert the prima facie case of caso fortuito presented by the respondents. On the nature of the order and prematurity of the petition: The Court clarified that the order of May 20, 1975, was an interlocutory order, not a final judgment. It directed that a hearing be conducted for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of damages, which is a step in the proceedings, not a disposition of the merits of the case. Since there was no final judgment rendered by the respondent Judge, the petition for certiorari with prohibition was premature. The petitioner could have moved for the setting aside of the order by presenting opposing affidavits showing a genuine issue of fact on the carrier's liability, other than the amount of damages.
Main Doctrine
A motion for summary judgment should be denied if there is a genuine issue of fact to be tried, and the court should not pervert the procedure to the trial of disputed questions of fact upon affidavits. However, where the evidence presented in support of a motion for summary judgment is sufficient to overcome the opposing papers and justify a finding as a matter of law that there is no defense to the action or the claim is clearly meritorious, the motion may be granted.