Diaz v. Moneño
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Agapita Diaz operated a Tamaraw FX taxi. On July 20, 1996, her taxi, driven by Arman Retes, was moving at an excessive speed and rammed into the rear of a Hino cargo truck. This incident resulted in the death of nine passengers, including Sherly Moneño. Procedural History: On August 13, 1996, the heirs of Sherly Moneño filed an action for breach of contract of carriage and damages against petitioner and her driver. Petitioner filed a third-party complaint against the truck owner and driver. Petitioner and her counsel failed to appear at the scheduled pre-trial conferences, leading the trial court to allow the private respondents to present evidence ex parte. Petitioner's motion for leave to present evidence was denied. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision holding petitioner and her driver jointly and severally liable for damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, imputing grave abuse of discretion to the Court of Appeals for affirming the trial court's denial of her motion for leave to present evidence and for holding her liable for breach of contract.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the trial court’s decision denying petitioner’s motion for leave to present evidence on her defense and third-party complaint. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the trial court’s decision holding petitioner liable for breach of contract.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the trial court's decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the motion for leave to present evidence: The Court reiterated that Section 3, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court charges the counsel served with notice of pre-trial with the duty of notifying the party represented. The failure of petitioner's counsel to appear, despite due notice, constituted negligence that bound the petitioner. Furthermore, Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 18 clearly state that the failure of a defendant to appear at pre-trial may result in the plaintiff being allowed to present evidence ex parte and the court rendering judgment based on such evidence. Therefore, the trial court did not err in allowing the private respondents to present their evidence ex parte. On the liability for breach of contract: The Court emphasized the stringent duty of a common carrier to carry passengers safely, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons. In a contract of carriage, there is a statutory presumption that the common carrier is at fault or negligent when a passenger dies or is injured. This presumption can only be overcome by evidence that the carrier exercised extraordinary diligence. In this case, the petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption. The findings of the lower courts, which were affirmed by the Court of Appeals, indicated that the accident was caused by the reckless speed and gross negligence of petitioner's driver, demonstrating a disregard for passenger safety. Consequently, holding the petitioner guilty of breach of contract of carriage was correct.
Main Doctrine
A common carrier is presumed negligent when a passenger dies or is injured, and this presumption can only be overcome by evidence of extraordinary diligence. Failure to appear at pre-trial, without valid cause, may lead to the allowance of ex parte presentation of evidence by the opposing party.