Manguerra v. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 257341. November 22, 2021.]

ANA MARIA MANGUERRA AND MACOVIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC., respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated22 November 2021which reads as follows: CAIHTE

"G.R. No. 257341 (Ana Maria Manguerra and Macovic Development Corporation v. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.). — The Court resolves to: (1) GRANT petitioners Ana Maria Manguerra and Macovic Development Corporation's (petitioners) motion for extension of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari; 1 and (2) NOTE the Entry of Appearance 2 dated August 31, 2021 of Atty. Jose Ramon R. Remollo of Romero Remollo Raz & Redillas Law Offices as counsel for petitioners.

After a judicious study of the case, the Court further resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 3 for having been filed out of time. Records show that petitioners received a copy of the Court of Appeals (CA) Resolution 4 dated July 15, 2021 on August 3, 2021, 5 and thus, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, 6 had until August 18, 2021 to file the petition. Notably, in computing the reglementary period for the filing of the petition, petitioners appear to have mistakenly used as basis Administrative Circular No. 56-2021 7 and Office of the Court Administrator Circular No. 114-2021, 8 which only cover the Appellate Collegial Level Courts and First and Second Level Courts. For the Supreme Court, it is Memorandum Order No. 64-2021, 9 as amended by Memorandum Order No. 65-2021, 10 which finds applicability. Verily, it deserves highlighting that, notwithstanding the physical closure of the Court from August 2, 2021 to August 20, 2021, there was no suspension of the reglementary period for filing of petitions since the said issuance still allows for the filing of pleadings and other court submissions, viz.:

For the guidance of lawyers/parties-litigants, the following guidelines are likewise issued:

1. The personal filing/service of pleadings and other court submissions during the above period shall not be allowed but they may do so either by registered mail, or through the services of duly accredited private couriers or by transmitting them through electronic mail in accordance with the existing electronic filing guidelines.

2. For exceptionally urgent matters, personal filing of the pleading of submission may be done through the Docket Receiving Section of the Judicial Records Office but only after the concerned personnel of the Docket Receiving Section shall have properly communicated and cleared the matter with the proper Office and have received official confirmation that the matter covered by the pleading or submission being personal filed is indeed urgent. (Emphases supplied)

In this case, however, petitioners belatedly posted their motion for extension of time to file the petition on September 3, 2021, 11 which is beyond the deadline of August 18, 2021. Subsequently, without the motion for extension being granted, petitioners filed the petition on October 19, 2021. 12 Hence, on account of the belated filing of the petition, the assailed CA rulings had already become final and unappealable.

In any event, the Court finds no reversible error committed by the CA in rendering the assailed rulings. As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner Macovic Development Corporation is vicariously liable for the negligence of its employee John Richard Rojas who had caused damage to the vehicle of Patrick Deakin in the course of the performance of his official duties, and the latter was, in turn, validly subrogated by respondent UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. 13 Case law instructs that 'when an employee causes damage due to their own negligence while performing [his/her] own duties, there arises a presumption that [his/her] employer is negligent. This presumption can be rebutted only by proof of observance by the employer of the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees,' 14 which was not shown in this case. Moreover, it bears to stress that factual findings of the lower courts are binding and conclusive on this Court and will generally not be reviewed on appeal absent any of the exceptions laid down by jurisprudence, 15 as in this case.

SO ORDERED. (Hernando, J., on Official Leave)."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Dated August 31, 2021; rollo, pp. 3-5.

2.Id.

3. See Petition for Review on Certiorari dated September 25, 2021; rollo, pp. 12-45.

4.Id. at 63. Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez with Associate Justices Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas and Carlito B. Calpatura, concurring.

5.Id. at 14-15.

6. Section 2. Time for filing; extension. — The petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment. x x x

7. Entitled 'COURT OPERATIONS ON 2-20 AUGUST 2021' dated July 30, 2021.

8. Entitled 'COURT OPERATIONS STARTING 23 AUGUST 2021' dated August 20, 2021.

9. Entitled 'PHYSICAL CLOSURE OF OFFICES IN THE SUPREME COURT' dated July 30, 2021.

10. Entitled 'AMENDING MEMORANDUM ORDER No. 64-2021 DATED JULY 30, 2021' dated August 4, 2021.

11.Rollo, p. 5.

12.Id. at 12.

13.Id. at 58-59.

14. See UCPB General Insurance, Co., Inc. v. Pascual Liner, Inc., G.R. No. 242328, April 26, 2021.

15. See Chuanico v. Legacy Consolidated Plans, Inc., 719 Phil. 284, 291 (2013). See also Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. v. CA, 472 Phil. 11, 22 (2004), where the Court held that 'it is a settled rule that in the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of review, the Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case considering that the findings of facts of the CA are conclusive and binding on the Court.'