Vallacar Transit

VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC.
VS JOCELYN CATUBIG
FACTS:
Respondents husband, Catubig, was on his way home riding in tandem on a
motorcycle with his employee, Emperado. Catubig was the driver. While
approaching a curve he tried to overtake a slow moving 10-wheeler cargo
truck by crossing-over to the opposite lane, which was then being traversed
by the Ceres Bulilit bus driven by Cabanilla, headed for the opposite direction.
When the two vehicles collided, Catubig and Emperado were thrown from the
motorcycle. Catubig died on the spot where he was thrown, while Emperado
died while being rushed to the hospital.
Cabanilla was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in double homicide
in before MCTC of Manjuyod-Bindoy-Ayungon of the Province of Negros
Oriental. MCTC dismissed the case and found that Cabanilla was not
criminally liable for the deaths of Catubig and Emperado, because there was
no negligence, not even contributory.
Respondent filed before the RTC a Complaint for Damages against petitioner,
seeking actual, moral, and exemplary damages, in the total amount of
P484,000.00 and alleged that petitioner is civilly liable because Cabanilla, was
reckless and negligent in driving the bus which collided with Catubigs
motorcycle. Petitioner, in its Answer with Counterclaim, contended that the
proximate cause of the vehicular collision, which resulted in the deaths of
Catubig and Emperado, was the sole negligence of Catubig when he
imprudently overtook another vehicle at a curve and traversed the opposite
lane of the road. As a special and affirmative defense, petitioner asked for the
dismissal of respondents complaint for not being verified and/or for failure to
state a cause of action, as there was no allegation that petitioner was
negligent in the selection or supervision of its employee driver.
RTC favored petitioner and ruled that the proximate cause of the collision of
the bus and motorcycle was the negligence of the driver of the motorcycle,
Catubig. The RTC, moreover, was convinced through the testimony of the
Administrative and Personnel Manager of the Dumaguete branch of petitioner,
that petitioner had exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of
its employee drivers, including Cabanilla. The counterclaim of petitioner was
dismissed.
CA held that both Catubig and Cabanilla were negligent in driving their
respective vehicles. Catubig, on one hand, failed to use reasonable care for
his own safety and ignored the hazard when he tried to overtake a truck at a
curve. Cabanilla, on the other hand, was running his vehicle at a high speed
of 100 kilometers per hour. It brushed aside the ruling that there was due
diligence in the selection and supervision of employee drivers on the part of
petitioner.
ISSUE: WON THE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES SHOULD BE
OUTRIGHTLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO VERIFY
Petitioners arguments:
Complaint for damages should be dismissed for the latter's failure to
verify the same.
o The certification against forum shopping attached to the
complaint, signed by respondent, is not a valid substitute for
respondent's verification that she "has read the pleading and
that the allegations therein are true and correct of her personal
knowledge or based on authentic records."
o Petitioner cited jurisprudence in which the Court ruled that a
pleading lacking proper verification is treated as an unsigned
pleading, which produces no legal effect under Section 3, Rule
7 of the Rules of Court.
HELD: NO
The Rules of Court clearly provides that a pleading lacking proper verification
is to be treated as an unsigned pleading which produces no legal effect.
However, it also just as clearly states that "[e]xcept when otherwise
specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath, verified
or accompanied by affidavit." No such law or rule specifically requires that
respondent's complaint for damages should have been verified.
The requirement on verification of a pleading is a formal and not a
jurisdictional requisite. It is intended simply to secure an assurance that what
are alleged in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the
imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good
faith. The party need not sign the verification. A party's representative, lawyer
or any person who personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in the
pleading may sign the verification.
However, petition is granted.
The presumption that employers are negligent under Article 2180 of
the Civil Code flows from the negligence of their employees.
Having adjudged that the immediate and proximate cause of the
collision resulting in Catubig's death was his own negligence, and
there was no fault or negligence on Cabanilla's part, then such
presumption of fault or negligence on the part of petitioner, as
Cabanilla's employer, does not even arise. Thus, it is not even
necessary to delve into the defense of petitioner that it exercised due
diligence in the selection and supervision of Cabanilla as its employee
driver.

Vallacar Transit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vallacar Transit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vallacar Transit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC.

You might also like