Far Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Alberto Gorospe entrusted a letter to FAR CORPORATION (petitioner) for delivery from Baguio City to Quezon City, paying a service fee of P1.50. Gorospe was allegedly assured of delivery within three days, but the letter never reached the addressee. Despite repeated inquiries, FAR CORPORATION could not confirm delivery and, in response to a demand letter, argued that Gorospe should have paid a higher fee if he considered the letter valuable. Procedural History: Private respondents filed a complaint for damages. The service of summons was significantly delayed due to FAR CORPORATION's alleged evasiveness in providing its correct address, taking approximately four years before service was finally effected on the President. Upon finally filing an answer, FAR CORPORATION's counsel presented a secretary's certificate as authority to represent the corporation in pre-trial, which the private respondents questioned. The trial court declared FAR CORPORATION in default, allowed the presentation of evidence ex parte, and rendered judgment awarding damages. This decision was affirmed by the Intermediate Appellate Court, with a reduction in moral damages. The Petition: FAR CORPORATION assailed the decision of the respondent court, alleging grave abuse of discretion in declaring it in default and in holding it liable based on ex parte evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring FAR CORPORATION in default and accepting the private respondents' evidence ex parte. Whether FAR CORPORATION is liable for damages for the non-delivery of the letter.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED and the decision of the respondent court is affirmed in toto. The decision is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of default and ex parte evidence: The Court sustained the respondent court's decision to declare FAR CORPORATION in default. The secretary's certificate presented by FAR CORPORATION's counsel, Atty. Melquiades Paredes, was deemed insufficient as it lacked the specific authority required by Section 23, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court to bind the client in pre-trial proceedings, particularly to enter into compromise. The authorization was general, covering "all cases" and "all and every matter" in pre-trials, but did not specifically mention the Gorospe case or its pre-trial. The Court noted Atty. Paredes' insistence on the certificate's validity and his failure to argue his motion for reconsideration, which further supported the finding of default. The prolonged delay in serving summons, attributed to the petitioner's evasive tactics, also weighed against them. On the issue of liability for damages: The Court found no reason to reverse the respondent court's factual findings regarding FAR CORPORATION's liability. The petitioner did not deny the non-delivery of the letter. Its defense, that the sender should have paid a higher fee for valuable mail, was considered a "cynical attitude" and an inadequate excuse. As a public utility, FAR CORPORATION has a special obligation to render services with fidelity. The failure to provide confirmation of delivery, which is a standard practice for delivery services, and the lack of proof of actual discharge of the contracted service, established negligence. The Court emphasized that the petitioner could not disclaim responsibility for non-delivery simply because an ordinary fee was paid, as this implies a lesser standard of care, which is unacceptable for a public service entity.
Main Doctrine
A public utility engaged in delivery services is obligated to exercise due diligence in the performance of its services, and failure to deliver an item entrusted to it, without proof of actual delivery or confirmation, renders it liable for damages. Furthermore, a corporation's counsel must possess specific authority to bind the client in pre-trial proceedings, and a general authorization is insufficient, potentially leading to a declaration of default.