You are on page 1of 2

FRANCO-CRUZ vs CA Case Digest

MA. LIZA FRANCO-CRUZ v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, et al. 565 SCRA 531 (2008), SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.) Contentions must be proved by competent evidence and reliance must be had on the strength of the party's own evidence and not upon the weakness of the opponent's defense. FACTS: Franco Transit bus collided with the rear portions of a bus and truck wrecker both owned by respondent Victory Liner, Inc., killing five people. The heirs of the victims filed a civil case against Ma. Liza Franco-Cruz (Franco-Cruz), the General Manager of Franco Transit; they argued that Franco-Cruz failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of the driver of the Franco Transit bus. In her answer, Franco-Cruz alleged that she is not the real party-in-interest and, therefore, the complaint stated no cause of action against her. Before establishing a defense, Franco Transit failed to appear during pre-trial hearing. The court proceeded in hearing the case ex-parte and declared her in default. Franco-Cruz filed an Omnibus Motion alleging that it was error to declare her in default. Franco Transit contended that the declaration in default of a defendant who fails to attend pre-trial had been eliminated in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court denied her partial motion for reconsideration. On appeal, it was dismissed for having been filed out of time making the trial courts decision final. ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC erred in not allowing a new trial on the basis of failure to appear HELD: There was no attempt, on the part of any of the witnesses for the heirs of the victims, to controvert Franco-Cruzs affirmative defense that there is no cause of action against her, she not being the registered owner of the Franco Transit bus, even despite her submission of the bus' Certificate of Registration in the name of Felicisima R. Franco which is conclusive proof of ownership. In maintaining their cause of action against Franco-Cruz, relied on the January 4, 1998 Traffic Accident Report of Balajadia, who conducted a spot investigation after the occurrence of the accident, wherein he stated that the Franco Transit bus was registered under the name of Marializa Franco-Cruz of Batac, Ilocos Norte.

It bears emphasis that the presentation by the victims of evidence ex-parte did not relieve them of the burden of proving their claims against petitioner. As in other civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the party who, as determined by the pleadings or nature of the case, asserts an affirmative issue. This applies with more vigor where, as in the instant case, the plaintiff was allowed to present evidence ex parte.

Case Digest on WILLIAM GARAYGAY VS. PEOPLE G.R. NO. 135503 (2000)

Motion to quash

Facts: The Executive Judge of the RTC of Manila issued a search warrant authorizing the search of As house in Lapu-Lapu City. By virtue of the warrant, As house was searched. A filed in the RTC of Lapu -Lapu City a motion toquash the search warrant and to exclude illegally seized evidence. Issue: Whether the motion to quash should have been filed with the RTC of Manila which issued the warrant. Held: No. When a search warrant is issued by one court, if the criminal case by virtue of the warrant is raffled off to abranch other than the one which issued the warrant, all incidents relating to the validity of the warrant should beconsolidated with the branch trying the criminal case