Five Star Bus Co., Inc. v. Santos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents Pedro and Lydia Santos filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage and damages against petitioners Five Star Bus Co., Inc. and its driver Carlos Salonga, seeking indemnification for the death of their son, Joey Santos. Joey Santos died when the Five Star bus he was riding collided with an oncoming trailer truck. Respondents alleged gross and wanton negligence on the part of the bus driver. Petitioners countered that the trailer truck driver's negligence caused the mishap. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 129, Kalookan City, set the pre-trial conference. Petitioners and their counsel failed to appear at the pre-trial and did not file a pre-trial brief. Consequently, the RTC declared petitioners in default and allowed private respondents to present evidence ex parte. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of the respondents, awarding compensatory damages, actual damages for funeral expenses, and attorney's fees. Petitioners' motion to set aside the order of default and their motion for reconsideration of the decision were denied by the RTC. The Petition: Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC decision but added an award of P50,000.00 for moral damages. Petitioners then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the declaration of default, the ex parte presentation of evidence, the awards of damages, and the affirmation by the CA.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in declaring the petitioners in default. Whether the trial court erred in allowing ex parte presentation of evidence and rendering judgment without the petitioners' participation. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's decision and in awarding additional moral damages.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with the modification that the award of P50,000.00 for moral damages is deleted. The Court held that the petitioners were bound by the negligence of their counsel and that the trial court did not err in declaring them in default. However, the additional award of moral damages by the Court of Appeals was deleted because the private respondents, as appellees, did not appeal the trial court's decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of default: The Court reiterated the rule that notices of pre-trial must be served on the party separately from his counsel, or at least on the counsel with the express obligation to notify the party. In this case, the pre-trial notice was sent to petitioners' counsel, Atty. Naidas, who had ample time to notify his clients before his resignation. Since no withdrawal of appearance was filed, Atty. Naidas remained the counsel of record, and petitioners were bound by his negligence. Therefore, the trial court did not err in declaring them in default. On the issue of ex parte presentation of evidence: The Court clarified that after declaring a party in default, the trial court is not obligated to receive evidence ex parte on the same day. The pre-trial and trial on the merits are typically held on separate days. The fifteen-day gap between the default order and the reception of evidence provided petitioners an opportunity to move for reconsideration, which they did. The Court also found no undue haste in the promulgation of the decision, as the issues were simple and the evidence presented was minimal. On the issue of additional award of moral damages: The Court agreed with the petitioners that the Court of Appeals erred in awarding additional moral damages. The private respondents, as appellees, did not appeal the trial court's decision. The rule is that an appellee who is not an appellant is bound by the judgment and cannot seek its modification unless the modification is to maintain the judgment on other grounds. Since the private respondents sought to have the judgment modified by adding moral damages, they should have filed their own appeal. Therefore, the additional award was deleted.
Main Doctrine
An appellee who has not appealed from a judgment of the trial court is bound by its terms and cannot seek modification of the judgment, unless the modification sought is to maintain the judgment on other grounds. If the purpose is to have the judgment modified or reversed, the appellee must also appeal.