SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241405. April 3, 2019.]
ANTONIETTA * M. PADLAN, petitioner, vs. THE PENINSUL sp ondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 03 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241405 — Antonietta M. Padlan versus The Peninsula Manila
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, including the Decision 1 dated December 27, 2016, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) as well as the Decision 2 and Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated March 26, 2018 and July 31, 2018 respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 108609, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition. A careful consideration of the Petition indicates petitioner's failure to show any cogent reason why the findings and rulings of the RTC and the CA should be reversed and set aside.
At the outset, the Court notes that petitioner raises the issue of negligence on the part of respondent, which is a question of fact that is beyond the scope of the Court's discretionary power of review in Rule 45 petitions. While there are exceptions to this rule, it is incumbent upon the party to show that such exists in the case. This, petitioner failed to do. On this ground alone, the Petition ought to be denied. Nevertheless, even if the Court were to consider the merits of the case, the conclusion would still be the same.
In order to successfully claim damages for quasi-delict, it is incumbent upon the petitioner as plaintiff to prove respondent's negligence. However, as found by the lower courts, she had failed to do so. Moreover, petitioner's invocation of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur must fail in the absence of showing that the specific requisites of the doctrine have been alleged and proved. Res ipsa loquitur is not a rigid or ordinary doctrine to be perfunctorily used but a rule to be cautiously applied, depending upon the circumstances of each case. 4 Consequently, the lower courts' finding on the absence of respondent's negligence stands.
Likewise, the Court affirms the findings of the RTC and the CA as regards the damages claimed by petitioner. The Court agrees with the lower courts' ruling that petitioner failed to prove her entitlement to these claims. However, the Court agrees with petitioner that her being represented by the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) should not deter the award of attorney's fees. As held in Our Haus Realty Development Corporation v. Parian, 5 a party is entitled to attorney's fees notwithstanding his/her availment of the free legal services offered by PAO. This notwithstanding, petitioner still failed to adduce evidence on her entitlement to attorney's fees. Hence, her claim for such is still denied.
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on wellness leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Also stated as "Antonieta" in some parts of the rollo.
1.Rollo, pp. 78-90. Rendered by the RTC, Branch 61, Makati City in Civil Case No. 11-555 penned by Acting Presiding Judge Maria Amifaith S. Fider-Reyes.
2.Id. at 30-39. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles concurring.
3.Id. at 43-44.
4.Spouses Bontilao v. Gerona, 645 Phil. 128, 135-136 (2010).
5. 740 Phil. 699, 720 (2014).