Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Antonio and Gloria Esteban filed an action for damages against Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) for injuries sustained when their jeep ran over an uncovered mound of earth and fell into an open trench, allegedly dug by PLDT for its underground conduit system. The spouses claimed the trench was not properly marked due to darkness and lack of warning lights. Procedural History: The trial court ruled in favor of the spouses, ordering PLDT to pay damages. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals initially reversed the trial court's decision, absolving PLDT. The spouses filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They then filed a second motion for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals eventually granted, reinstating the trial court's decision. PLDT filed a motion to set aside this resolution, arguing the second motion was filed out of time and the original decision had become final. The Court of Appeals denied PLDT's motion. The Petition: PLDT filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in not denying the second motion for reconsideration as it was filed out of time, and in misapplying the independent contractor rule to hold PLDT liable.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in allowing and acting upon a second motion for reconsideration that was filed out of time. Whether PLDT is liable for the injuries sustained by the spouses Esteban, considering the work was undertaken by an independent contractor.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated March 11, 1980, and September 3, 1980, and reinstated and affirmed its original decision promulgated on September 25, 1979. The Court ruled that the second motion for reconsideration was filed out of time, rendering subsequent resolutions null and void. The Court also found that the accident was due to the negligence of respondent Antonio Esteban and not imputable to PLDT, which was not liable for the acts of an independent contractor.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the second motion for reconsideration being filed out of time: The Court held that the second motion for reconsideration filed by the respondent spouses was indeed filed out of time. According to Section 1, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, a second motion for reconsideration could be presented within fifteen (15) days from notice of the order or judgment, deducting the time the first motion was pending. In this case, the first motion for reconsideration was filed on the last day of the reglementary period. Therefore, the spouses had only one day from receipt of the denial of their first motion to file a second motion for reconsideration with leave of court. They filed their motion for leave on February 29, 1980, and the second motion on March 7, 1980, both after the reglementary period had expired on February 24, 1980. Consequently, the resolution of the Court of Appeals allowing the second motion and the subsequent resolution reversing the original decision were null and void as they were issued when the court no longer had jurisdiction over the case due to the finality of the original decision. The Court emphasized that an application for extension of time must be filed prior to the expiration of the period sought to be extended, and the discretion to grant such an extension is conditioned upon the timeliness of the motion. On the issue of PLDT's liability and the independent contractor rule: The Court found no error in the Court of Appeals' original decision which held that the accident was due to the lack of diligence of respondent Antonio Esteban and was not imputable to PLDT. The evidence showed that the jeep swerved from the inside lane and hit the mound of earth, and the cause of the swerving was not disclosed. The Court found that the accident was not due to the absence of warning signs but to the unexplained swerving of the jeep. Furthermore, the Court noted that the jeep was running quite fast, contrary to the claim of respondent Antonio Esteban, as indicated by the tire marks and the fact that the jeep climbed the mound several feet. The Court concluded that respondent Antonio Esteban failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the accident, especially considering the drizzle and the need for regular lights. Even if there were alleged negligence on the part of PLDT, respondent Antonio Esteban had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, given his knowledge of the excavations on Lacson Street. The Court also found insufficient evidence to prove any negligence on the part of PLDT, relying only on self-serving testimony and an unverified photograph, with no police or medical reports. The burden of proof for negligence lies with the claimant, and the facts constitutive of negligence must be affirmatively established by competent evidence.
Main Doctrine
A second motion for reconsideration filed out of time, even if granted by the appellate court, is null and void and cannot disturb the finality of a judgment. Furthermore, an entity is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor unless it retains control over the means and methods of the work or is guilty of its own negligence.