Ferrer v. Ericta
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case stems from a complaint for damages filed by Mr. and Mrs. Romeo and Annette Ferrer against Mr. and Mrs. Francis and Dennis Pfleider. The Ferrers alleged that on December 31, 1970, in Bayawan, Negros Oriental, the sixteen-year-old son of the Pfleiders, Dennis, drove a Ford pick-up truck recklessly. This negligence caused the vehicle to overturn, resulting in severe physical injuries to Annette Ferrer, who was a passenger. The injuries led to paralysis, prolonged hospitalization, and significant medical expenses, causing the parents also to suffer mental anguish and incur substantial costs. 2. Procedural History: The complaint was filed on January 6, 1975. At the pre-trial conference on May 12, 1975, only the plaintiffs appeared, leading to the defendants being declared in default. The plaintiffs were allowed to present their evidence ex parte. On June 26, 1975, the defendants moved to set aside the default order, citing accident or excusable neglect, but this was opposed by the plaintiffs and denied by the respondent Judge on July 21, 1975. On the same date, the respondent Judge rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendants to pay various damages. Subsequently, on September 1, 1975, the defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the complaint stated no cause of action and that the action had prescribed. A Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration was filed on September 10, 1975, emphasizing the prescription defense. Despite the plaintiffs' opposition, arguing waiver and pro forma motions, the respondent Judge issued an order on September 23, 1975, absolving the defendants, citing lack of cause of action and prescription. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Romeo and Annette Ferrer, filed this petition for mandamus to compel the respondent Judge to execute the July 21, 1975 decision. They argue that the defenses of lack of cause of action and prescription were deemed waived by the private respondents due to their failure to appear at the pre-trial and their subsequent motions being pro forma. The core issue presented to the Supreme Court is whether the defense of prescription was waived by the private respondents' procedural conduct, particularly in light of the fact that the prescription period was apparent from the face of the complaint and the evidence presented.
Issue(s)
Whether the defense of prescription was deemed waived by the private respondents' failure to allege the same in their answer. Whether the respondent judge erred in absolving the defendants from liability on the grounds of lack of cause of action and prescription.
Ruling
The petition for mandamus is dismissed. The respondent judge did not err in absolving the defendants from liability on the ground of prescription.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of waiver of prescription: The Court reiterated its ruling in Chua Lamko v. Dioso, et al. and Philippine National Bank v. Perez, et al., holding that the defense of prescription is not deemed waived if it raises issues of fact not appearing upon the preceding pleading or if the evidence or the allegations in the complaint clearly show that the action has already prescribed. In the present case, the complaint itself alleged the accident occurred on December 31, 1970, and it was undisputed that the action was filed on January 6, 1975. This clearly shows the action was filed beyond the four-year prescriptive period for actions arising from quasi-delicts. On the issue of prescription: The Court affirmed that actions for damages arising from physical injuries due to a tort must be filed within four years, as provided by Article 1146, paragraph 2, of the New Civil Code. The four-year period commences from the date the quasi-delict is committed, which is the date of the accident. Since the accident occurred on December 31, 1970, and the complaint was filed on January 6, 1975, the action had clearly prescribed. Therefore, the respondent judge correctly absolved the defendants from liability on this ground, notwithstanding the prior declaration of default.
Main Doctrine
The defense of prescription, even if not raised in the answer or a motion to dismiss, may be considered by the court if the evidence or the allegations in the complaint clearly show that the action has already prescribed, as such failure to plead prescription does not constitute a waiver when the prescriptive period is apparent on the face of the pleading.