CASE: BARITUA VS MERCADER

FACTS:
The case stemmed from an accident which resulted to the death of Dominador
Mercader.
Mercader boarded a bus of JB Lines from Manila to Northern Samar. However,
he was not able to reach his destination since the said bus fell into the river which
caused his death. The accident happened because Baritua (the driver) negligently and
recklessly operated the bus at a fast speed. So the heirs of Mercader filed a suit against
the JB Lines Inc. However, JB Lines filed a motion to dismiss the complaint to strike out
the false pertinent matters therefrom and/or for bill of particulars on the primary grounds
that Mercader failed to implead Jose Baritua as an indispensable party and the cause of
action is a suit against a wrong and non-existent party since JB Lines is not a juridical
person nor an entity authorized to be sued.
In its answer, petitioner Baritua denied specifically all the material allegations in
the complaint and provided its defenses:
1. There was no issued passenger-freight ticket to Dominador Mercader
2. Baritua has no route in Manila but only in Pasay
3. Mercader was already suffering from an illness before the accident (already 75
years old)
Moreover, based on their affirmative defenses, petitioner averred that the
allegations on exemplary damages are replete; wrong docket fees were paid as they did
not declare the amount of lost cargoes; did not specify the amount of funeral expenses;
all were mere conclusionary averments without factual premise.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC had jurisdiction over the subject matter?
Whether or not CA disregarded petitioners procedural rights?
Does the Manchester ruling on docket fees applicable?
RULING:
SC- The petitioner is liable for its failure to observe the extraordinary diligence required
of a common carrier.
The RTC has jurisdiction over the case even if wrong docket fees were paid. Since the
complaint was filed in 1984 and the Manchester ruling became effective only in 1987, it
cannot be invoked retroactively.
Also, there is no reason to overturn the trial courts findings when they are conclusive
and are not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of facts and circumstances.