Vallacar Transit Inc.

v Jocelyn Catubig
Date: May 30 2011
Ponente: J. Leonardo- De Castro
Nature: Rule 45 from the CA
Summary: Catubig with Emperado overtook a 10 wheeler truck on a curve
and collided with Ceres Bulilit bus. Catubig and Emperado died and the wife
of Catubig now files criminal case which was dismissed and now a civil case.
P argues that the Jocelyn Catubig’s pleading was not verified and should be
dismissed outright -> cannot be
Facts:
 Vallacar Transit (P) is engaged in transportation business and a
franchise owner of a Ceres Bulilit bus
 Quirino Cabanilla is the regular bus driver of P
 Jan 27 94 – Jocelyn Catubig’s husband, Quintin Catubig was on his
way home from Dumaguete City riding in tandem on a motorcycle
with his employee, Teddy Emperado
o While approaching the curve, at 59-60 kph, Catubig tried to
overtake a 10-wheeler cargo and when he crossed over the
opposite lane, Catubig collided with Ceres Bulilit Bus driven by
Cabanilla
o Catubig died on the spot
o Emperado dead on arrival sa hospital
 Feb 1 1994- Cabanilla charged with reckless imprudence resulting in
double homicide before MCTC province of Neg. Occ.
 After prelim Inv, MCTC issued a resolution dismissing the criminal
charges against Cabanilla finding no negligence, not even
contributory
 Jocelyn Catubig (R) filed before RTC in 1995 a complaint for damages
for 484k pesos for the death of her husband
o Based on Art 2180 in relation to Art 2176
 P answer
o Proximate cause of accident was Catubig’s negligence when
he overtook the 10 wheeler
o As a special and affirmative defense, P asked for the dismissal of
respondent’s complaint for not being verified and/or for failure to
state a cause of action, as there was no allegation that P was
negligent in the selection or supervision of its employee driver
 Pretrial order
o Stipulated the primary issue for trial was WON P should be held
liable for Catubig’s death
o Trial ensued
 PO2 Elnas conducted an invstigation of the collision
o Bus running 100kph
o Motorcycle chassis broke into 3 parts, 26 and 38 meters apart
o The front bumper of the bus was only damaged
 Peter Cadimas (witness)
o saw the collision
 o signaled at the bus to ride but it was running fast
o next thing he knew, collision already
 Espiritu (photographer)
o Took photographs of the scene
o Catubig lying on the floor
 Dr Baldado – medicolegal doctor
o Laceration fracture on right leg of Catubig
o Laceration and fracture of left elbow
o Multiple abrasions in abdomen
o Etc.
 R herself testified on the amount of damages
o Earning capacity
o Burial expenses
o Cost of motorcycle
o Legal services
o Legal fees
 R presented exhibits consisting of
o Catubig’s marriage contract
o 2 children’s ceritificate of live births
o Catubig’s college diploma
o Sketch of collision
o Post mortem report
 P presented their own witnesses
o Amahit (Court stenographer)
 Took the transcript of stenographic notes against
Cabanilla as true and certified copy of prelim investigation
in the criminal case
 Also, the MCTC resolution dismissing the said crim case
o Maypa (Admin and and Personnel Manager at Dumaguete
branch of P
 Responsible for hiring of personnel including drivers and
conductors
 Explained that an applicant should be 35-45 yrs old
 At least 5 years experience driving big trucks
 Submit police report, court, and medical clearances and
possess all the necessary requirements for driving motor
vehicle of more than 4500 kg in gross weight, such as
professional driver’s license with restriction code of 3
 Should pass initial interview
 Actual driving and maintenance skills test
 Written psychological examination involving defensive
driving techniques
 Applicant has to go through a 15 day familiarization of the
bus and road conditions before being deployed for work
 HOWEVER, WHEN APPOINTED AS ADMIN CABANILLA WAS
ALREADY AND EMPLOYEE (NYETA YAN)
o Maypa explained procedure when accidents happen
  Preventive suspension
 After internal investigation, Cabanilla was declared not
guilty
o Maypa also recounted ezpenses P incurred due to this litigation
 RTC accepted all evidence presented
 RTC ruled that the “point of impact x x x occurred beyond the center
lane near a curve within the lane of the Ceres Bus – fault of motorcycle
o P also exercised due diligence in selection and upervision
o DISMISSED
 R appealed to CA
 CA ruled
o Both are negligent as Catubig failed with reasonable care for his
safety and hazard when it overtook the 10 wheeler and
Cabanilla negligent for 100kph
o Due Diligence of Maypa untenable as he was not in a position to
testify
o Equally liable. Award 250k for death of both catubig and
emperador
o Denied MR of P
 Petition for review before SC
 P arguments
o Complaint for damages be dismissed for failure to verify the
same
 Certification against non 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
 P cited jurisprudence that pleading lacking proper
verification is treated as unsigned pleading an produces
no legal effect under Sec 3 Rule 7 of ROC
o Denied liability under 2180 and 2176 for already decided in
MCTC criminal case and RTC civil case that no liability imputed
on petitioner
o 250k indemnity lacks factual basis and contradicting to the
equal fault ratio
 R arguments
o CA was correct
Issue: WON non verification of pleading can be ground for outright dismissal
(NO)

Held:
 Complaint for damages against petitioner was on July 19 1995 so 1964
ROC in effect
o Rule 7 sec 6 of 1964 ROC
 “Sec. 6. Verification.—A pleading is verified only by an
 affidavit stating that the person verifying has read the
pleading and that the allegations thereof are true of his
own knowledge.
Verifications based on “information and belief,” or upon
“knowledge, information and belief,” shall be deemed
insufficient.”
o July 1 1997 New rules Rule 7 sec 4 1997 ROC
 “SEC. 4. Verification.—Except when otherwise specifically
required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath,
verified or accompanied by affidavit.
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has
read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true
and correct of his knowledge and belief.
A pleading required to be verified which contains a
verification based on “information and belief,” or upon
“knowledge, information and belief,” or lacks a proper
verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.”
o AM 00-2-10 which became effective May 1 2000 now reads
 “SEC. 4. Verification.—Except when otherwise specifically
required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath,
verified or accompanied by affidavit.
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has
read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true
and correct of his personal knowledge or based on
authentic records.
A pleading required to be verified which contains a
verification based on “information and belief” or upon
“knowledge, information and belief,” or lacks a proper
verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.”
 1997 ROC and AM 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 clearly states that “except when otherwise
specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath,
verified or accompanied by affidavit”
o No such law or rule specifically requires that respondent’s
complaint for damages should have been verified
o Although parties would often submit a joint verification and
certificate against forum shopping, the two are different (Pajuyo
v CA)
 Certificate of non forum shopping must be signed by the
party and not by counsel. Otherwise defective
 Requirement of a pleading is a formal and not a
jurisdictional requisite
 Simply an assurance that what are alleged in the
pleading are correct and filed in good faith
 The party need not sign the verification
  A party’s representative, lawyer or any person who
personally knows the trith of the facts alleged in the
pleading may sign the verification

 General rule:
o Pleading need not be verified, (formal and not jurisdictional)
 Exception:
o unless there is a law or rule specifically requiring the same
o Example
 Pleadings in summary procedure
 Petition for review from RTC to SC (RULE 41 sec 2)
 Petition for review of the decision of the RTC to CA under
Rule 42 sec 1
 Petition for review from quasi judicial bodies to CA under
Rule 43 sec 5(5)
 Petition for review before SC under Rule 45 sec 1
 Petition for annulment of judgements or final orders and
resolutions under Rule 47, sec 4
 Application for preliminary injunction or TRO under Rule 58
sec 4
 Application for appointment of receiver under Rule 59 sec
1
 Application for support pendent lite under Rule 61 sec 1
 Petition for certiorari against the judgements, final orders,
resolution of constitutional commissions under Rule 64 sec 2
 Petition for certiorari prohibition and mandamus under
Rule 65 sec 1 to 3
 Petition for quo warranto under Rule 66 sec 1
 Complaint for expropriation under Rule 67 sec 1
 Petition for indirect contempt under Rule 71 sec 4
 All complaints or petitions involving intra-corporate
controversies under the Interim Rules of Procedure on Intra
corporate controversies under the Interim rules on
Corporate Rehabilitation
 Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages
and annulment of voidable marriages as well as petition
for summary proceedings under the Family Code
o When circumstances warrant, court may just order the correction
of unverified pleadings and waiver strict compliance in order that
the ends of justice may be served
 In certificate of non-forum shopping,
o All complaints petitions, application s and other initiatory
pleadings must be accompanied by a certificate against forum
shopping under Rule 7 sec 5 1997 ROC
 Rule 45 is for errors of law and and factual issues in the lower court
 should be received with great respect but with exceptions 1
o This case falls under the exception for RTC and CA are
contradicting
 Substantive:
o P indeed have no liability as proven by the records
o In weighing the circumstance, the bus alleged to be on 100kph v
motorcycle overtaking and going to the opposite lane, it is only
logical that the motorcycle will most likely be at a much higher
speed to take over the 10 wheeler
o Presumption of fault under 2180 has been overcome as his
negligence was the proximate cause of his death
 Dispositive: RTC decision reinstated

1 The above rule, however, admits of certain exceptions. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are generally

conclusive but may be reviewed when: (1) the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are

contradictory; (2) the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (3) the inference made

by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (4) there is grave abuse

of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (5) the appellate court, in making its findings, goes beyond the issues of the

case and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) the judgment of the

Court of Appeals is premised on a misapprehension of facts; (7) the Court of Appeals fails to notice certain relevant

facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; and (8) the findings of fact of the Court of

Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court or are mere conclusions without citation of specific evidence, or

where the facts set forth by the petitioner are not disputed by respondent, or where the findings of fact of the Court

of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but are contradicted by the evidence on record.