ivision (GRO. 146224, Jan 26,2007] VIRGINIA REAL. SISENANDO H. BELO DECISION 542 Phil. 109 AUSTRIA MARTINEZ, J: efor the Cour isa patton for review on ventions under Roe 45 of he ‘Revised Rules of Cour assaling the Resolution!” dated Jane 2, 2000 ofthe (Cour of Appeals (CA) which dismiss gutight the petien for review of Virginia Real petione in CA-GR. SP No, 58799, andthe CA Ressuton) ated November 27,2000 which denied her Motion for Reconsideration, “The facto the cae: Pationer ened and operated the Wasabe Fastfoo sal oeated at the Food (eater fhe Pllpine Women’s University (PWU) along Tat Avenue, lalate, Dania, Siseando Selo espondost) owed and operatd tho BS Master fastfood stl ao lacted tthe Pood Center of WU. Around 7200 dock inthe morning of January 25, 1996, afr broke out a feldoners Wasabe Fasiood salle fe spread abd glted wer laslood Falls inthe area, including respondents tall An investigation ote cause of {he ie by Fee laestigatr SPO: Arel Poca (Pinca) ceva ha he fie broke oat due tothe leaking fumes coming fom the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPO) stove and tank installed at pestone’ sal For the los of his fatood fal doe to the fr, reapondent demanded eompensition fom petione Homer, petlioer tel tomsede to respottoade dead Hence, respondent Sel compli for damages azanst petitioner before the ‘Metropolitan Teal Cour ranch 24, Mena (MeTC),cocksted as Cl Case No ‘ofa Regpondent alleged that petitioner fled to eerie due digence ix ‘he upkeep and maintenance of her cooking equpment s wells the selection fand supervision of er employees; that pettione’= neglignee was the roximst cause ofthe ie that gtd the fad stl 4) In her Answer dated September 23,1996, petitioner denied tnt, on the ‘roan tha ho ire wae 9 orto even a thats exeried gen Resonsderation holding that cannot direard evidence showing thatthe re ignated ‘fom pedtionrstastfod. stall that the inerensed amount of temperate damages awarded to respondent is nota filleompenstion but on = ‘ai approximate of what he los due tothe negligence of petitioner’ workers 9) Petitioner then file 2 Petition fr Review with the CA, docked as CAG. SP ‘No. $8799|"8] On June 16, 2000, he CA ised a Ressaton dissing the ptton for being "procedrally awed/defceat“") Tho CA held thatthe Etnenot RIC Detison nat not cred sata copy by the Ck of Con ‘hata sere tre copy of he MeTC Decision was not tac ft mater otins ofthe reeds such se poston paper ofthe pres and fat ‘Ponce, would suppor the tater leatons of te petton were ia ot attache 2) (0m July 14,2000, pttonr filed her Bton for Reconsideration attaching holocpis of the Deans ofthe RIC and MTC as ettied corre by Ue ler of Court (On November 27, 2000, the CA issued ity Resolution denying peione’s Motion for Resonaderation 5] Hence the preset ptton asing the flowing issues: ‘Whether the submited certified true copy of the appealed Aesion ot the Regional Tal Cotas authenticated by a srt ftnployes other than the Cok of Cort who wan at sound st that ise sad copy an soured constitutes compliance wah tbe ules? 2 Whether the submission of 2 cored true copy of the Mecopaitan Tal Cours judgment i stil an indipensable fequirement in fling a petition for review before the Cout of ‘penis derpte th act ha sd jet was ready medi ‘y'the above decision ofthe Regional eal Court and Its the Lue deson that's the proper subject ofthe pttion or review? ‘4 Whether the eubmision oF copies of the respostive poston papers of the contending paies is ll an inaiupenesle Foalrement in fing a petit for reve before the Court ‘Appris dey the fac thatthe contents thereat are alicady (sted inthe body of the verifed petition and in the abject. dgment ofthe Metopltan Tal Cour? in the selection and supervision of her employees 5) Afri the MeTC rendered ie Dession ©] dard Apis, 1999 n favor ofthe ‘espoadeat the dispositive pation of whch reads WHEREFORE, in ight ofthe foregoing, jadgment i hereby rendered ‘lavoro the lait nd gaia the datendant ordering the les 2).To pay the paint the sum of #5000000 representing temperate temodeate damages and 2) To pay the pais the sm of 26,000.00 a snd for attorney's ‘es ad gation expenses. ‘he countercaim fled by the defendant is herby DENIED FOR TACK OF MERIT sooRDERED.?! ‘he MoT had that dhe investigation conducted bythe appropiate autoxty revealed that the fie bre out due othe leaking fares cong om the LPC ‘ove and tak installed at pestioner fastfood sal that factual reunstances {ida show any gn fnerornse by any ors of tre in thatthe fie ‘Scrared det frttoun event that the pesioner fed to eerie doe “igen, preenson and glance i the conduc of her business, prises ‘in sinalning the safety of her soking equpent as wel as inthe sleton bd uperviagn of her etspayee: hat ees if petner pace the fal to het ‘ployecs, Artie 2u8o ofthe Chil Cog ads appistion, tht in the absence ‘tsuppating evideoce, te amount of actual daages and unreezed prot prayed for by respondent cannot be grated tha, nonetheless, respondent i Thuted to temperate damages since meponden! sorained pocorn Tos, ‘ough roe flue ean, rom the very nate of he eae, be prove eth Dissatisied petone led an appeal withthe Refonal val Cour, Branch 43, ‘Mani (RTC), daekted as Ci Case No. 99-5460 isstig thatthe fie was fortuitous event. On November 26, 1999, the RTC atfrmed the Dedsion ofthe IMEC but erased the smosnt of temperte damages awarded 0, the _esponéent fom P50,000.00 19 PB0,000.00.*) Petitioner filed Motion for Reconsiemtion contending tha the incense in the ‘gear of temperate damages is unzeaunablesace abe tl inetd Loses ‘fom We ie In is Order dated Apel 12, 2000, the RTC denied petitioner's Motion for 4 Whether te herein petitioner could be held abe for damages a5 ‘esl of thee thet eed ot only her ova food Kas but ase the adjacent fooesale tthe Food Center premises of the Phlppine Women's University, inching” that ofthe respondent 5 Whether the Relonal Til Court could increase the amount of Alamages awarded bythe Metropolitan Tal Cau feor ofthe respondent who ha ot een fled an appeal thereon] Pettioner submis tat ues of procedure should not be applied in every harsh, Inerble and techriclly unreasonable sense, ‘ide admitng thatthe RTC Decision and Order were ot serif by the (lek of Court hinsel,pelidonte nits that they were ceed authentic ‘Sip by Administ Oe 1V Gregorio B. arson a th TC As tothe MeTC Decision, petionee contends ha the submission of cetsed {re copy thereof ino an ncepensble equrement boca th fade ‘ot thembjet ofthe piton fo ie. tn any ase petioneraubritstht ale bad substantially complied withthe quirements of the ‘rule when she alached wih hee" ton for Revorsderaton the copies of the Deisans ofthe RTC and MTC as ceried correct by the Cee of Cour Anent the non-sbmitson of the postion papers of the paris pstioner ‘maintains dat the eontents of sald ponion paper over engi quoted ‘ebatni the ption and inthe alice ey f te MeTE Deen (nthe submission of adavitsof witnesses, pettioner contends that twas aot ‘eves bosrise the eico before the MeLC wes ot covered by summnay proces (nthe merits of hr patton before the CA, petitioner avers that she should not ‘etal Kale forsee which was a fortis event sce te fre coud nt be {Geaseda sad the spread othe ire tote adacet fasfod sas was inevitable ani, she anges thatthe RTC cannot increase the amount of temperate «damages sine the respondent not appeal om he udgment ofthe METE: Respondent opted oto file a Comment, manifeting tht the pein containg ‘hon segues wich would rere commen! nce he argument re Du ‘reba of thon ried and decided bythe lower eourts071 ‘The Cour gave de couse tothe peiton and reqed both partis submit‘heir respective memoranda 8) in compliance therewith, pestionrsnbmited hor Memorandum) On the other band, respondent led a Manesaton tating that snce-no new issues have bee ese By the ptivoner im et petton and inorder otto be redundans he sdopt a his peor he ‘memoranda he fled inthe Me an the RTC=°" In hit Memoranda before the MeTC and RTC, espandent emphasized the ‘idence be presented to eal Ie cane of ton again. ploy, [rtcpaly the testimony of Fue Investaior SFO: Arnel. ine lang the {he irorgnated fom the LPG stove and tank in pester fstfoad al ‘The requnemente ato form and conten of petition for review of deision of RET ave ad down Seton Rl of te Revie Rae of Co, See. 2. Form and contents The petit sal be ed in seve (9) Teuble copies, with te otginal copy Intended fr the court being deat es uch bythe petisone, and shall} sate tbe fullnass of tho pares to theese, thot imploding te lowes courts or aes thereof ether a pettioners o respondents (6) fae the spect ‘maton dats showing hat stad om ne (0) ert eel 2 stem of te matter aelved the sue raed, he speciation Uf errs of facto aw, both, alegely commited bythe Regional “rat Court end the reasons or atguments Teed upon far be Alwance of the appeal (@) be actompanied by cat legible Atopieate originals o tre copes ofthe odnents or final orders of fath ower ours, ceriiod tore bythe slerk of eat of the eglonal Trial Cout the equste number of plan copes hore ad ifthe pleadings aod oer mater portions of the ecard would oppor the allegations ofthe petition sphst suplid) Under Secin 2 of the same fue, allure to comply with the above ‘eglrments "shall be suflent ground forthe dsmisa rea” Hovever,Scton 6, Role of the Reise Rles of Cour lg provides hat ues ‘hall be eral eonstroed inader to rome thei edie of searing as, "Seedy and inexpensive dapontion of very Soin snd proce Tadd, rules of procedure should be sed to promate not rate justice) Inthe present cet, ptione'sabission of copia ofthe RTC Decision and (Onder Eatied as 'coveect by the Adminisative Ofer IV of the KIC i ‘nsuticent compliance wit the requements ofthe rule. Petisone fed to show thatthe Clek of Court was fal on leave and the Adnistrative lullenged resolutions, remand the case to the CA and diet the latter 10 ecole on te mers of he petition in CA-G.R SP No 8799. Bul, that Would further delay the ease, Constderig he soe alse whieh canbe resolved 00 fhe bass ofthe pledinge and docaments Alt and the fet ft pstioner here ha aed the Crt to dee her peton on the mers the Cour dems more pac! and ithe restr ieret fuse nl Lo rerun ‘caseto the CA but stead, to resave the contovery one and fr all ‘The Court shal now adres the tue of whether the fre ws fortulous even. Jurisprudence defines the elements ofa "Yorutous event” as flows: (2) the {use ofthe onfresee apd unenpeted osirrence must be independent of ‘oman wl (snort be pose to foresee event which emai the ‘oo fru ori cam be foreseen, i amt be sponte to svt (©) Securence must be such a lo render i posse Tor the debe to ll i Ghlgation las aoraal manner ad (@)the obligor must be fee fom a3) purpaion adhe aggravation f the inary reeling to the eee [1 {ticle 17 ofthe cil Code provides that no perso sal be responsible for {Hrutous event which couldnt be foreseen, o whieh, though foreseen, was Inetable Tm ther words, thee mst bets cote eachision of hun age ‘tom the nus ofinury or las 3) Wis exablihed evidence tht the fe origts ram leaking res rom the PG stove and tank stalled at ptoner faslood sal apd her employees fale to prevent the eon spending an destroying the ter fastfood all Including respondents frtiood salt Such cecumstances' do not support etoner hoary of orastous event Petoners bce allegation e far fom silent poo or the Court to rl a her favors is base in the mle of idence that bare leptons unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof To shot, mere llgations ae not evidene! ‘The Ci Cade provide: ‘ut. 2178. Whoever by set of omislon causes damage o ante ‘ere beng faut or nligence, i ablged to ay forthe damage done. ‘Art, 2180. The obligation impose by Ariel 2:76 is demandabe not dal fron own ce oon or thse ops or Officer wa officinly designated ws oficeria-charge. The ru in explicit ‘mandate that the ele dupe orgs or eve copie ofthe Judgment ot ‘ial onder ot bth wer court st be ore coset bythe Cesk Cour ‘Nonetheless, a strict application ofthe rue in this ese i not called fo. Th (Court haa agnnst te mistal of appeals base solely on eccales 0 sce pec on pela a tantalmpi withe formal requirements) There is ample jurisprudence hong that the ‘Strequent and substantial sompiianee of «pty may eal or theresa of ‘he rls of proedune|23] When the CA dimisee a ptition trip and the Detones fle motion forthe resnsterton of such damsel, appending ret the requnte pleading, Sosuments or oner/reslaon, th mould ‘contittenbstantl comping withthe Revie Rls of Court 2 ‘Tus, in the present cage, hare was substantia compliance when petlaner stiachod iar Motion for Reconsideration «photocopy ofthe Decson of he IICas cried correct by the Clerk of Court othe #1. In ke manne, bare tas substantial compliance when petidoncr attached, aber Motion fot ecotsieration, «photocopy ofthe Dodson a the MeTC as ert caret by the Clerks Cour of te RC (nthe neces oftaching positon papers and alanis af wines, Selon orale 2a the Revised ues of Court roqles attachments i thece would ‘support the algation of the pettion!251 ta the preseat case, there was 20 pelling need to atch the postin papers of th partis snc the Deions ofthe MTC and RIC ateady stated ther respective arguments. AC To the ltd, the Court notes tat they were pesos bythe respondent spat of ‘he testimony of his witness Fire Investigator Pinca and therfore would ot ‘appon the algaion of the pttioner "rly, dlamlng the pti for review, the CA had commited grave abuse of dscrtion amounting to lack of Juadetion in putting a premium on {eciniaite at the expense oot rezlution he case ‘The Conr’s pronouncement in Republic of the Phiipines v, Court of Appeal is worth chong; eases shold be determined onthe merits ter ‘aifopporunty yal ares for vestation oftheir nutes and defenses, ater {han on technicality o tome procedral imperdeons ott way the ends of jjtice wold be beter served”) Tas, wht shoo guide judi aeon ix {hats par igen gente allast opp oath the mero i ‘tion be dune rte than far hin Woes Hs, hoaoe oe property 00 ee techniatien 28) ‘The next most log step would then be fr the Cour to spy st side the ‘The owners and manages of an esubishment or enterprise ze ikewie esponsbie for damp cates by tee employes fn he ‘ere ofthe ache ow te tera empye oo the tenner econ, Employers sll be ble forthe damages caused by thei employees and household helpers acing within the scope of thee essiged ta, ‘ven though the former are ot engagod in ay usins or ius. ‘The cespnsibilty ete of iy this arile shall cease when the porous herein mentioned prove thal they cbserved al he lgenc of foo father oa family t prevent damage ‘Whenever an employe’ negligence ennss damage or iu to another there Intanilyares a presumption fre ants tht the employer aed Yo exerci {Hlgentam pats amis he section ep eigiend) or eapenion (cslp i wglndo) ofits employer 1 To avoid ibility for 3 quale ‘Secured by ls cuployes th player mest oreenie te preatoption by ‘rsentngcouvining poof at he exercad the ear and diigence of goed father offal in the selection ad spervison of hi employe. 5) nhl case, petoner aa oy fale show that he subzited prof tat the LPG stove ad tn in her fastfood stall were maintained n good condition abd Devodealyebecked for defects ut she also fled to submat proof tat she {rere the diligence of & Rood father of a family nthe section and Saperiin of her employes. For fang to prove cate and diligence fn the Inulteranes of he coding exuipment ad fhe selon ad uperviston of er employee, the ecesiy nernce wa hat peltaner bad been negligent bast ‘As othe award of temperate damages, he increase in Ue aout terol by {he AIC improper: The RIC could no lower enane the amounts awarded Dy the MeTC since responéet dd not appeal fom the Decision ofthe MeTC. 's7l ie wllseded that «put whe doesnot appeal fm the decison may ‘notobtan any arnatve elt fom the appelt court ther than what he as “btaned rom the lower cout iran, whose deision Is brought up oo appeal |981 white there ae exceptions ro this rule, such e if hey iva (2) rors afeting the lower court's jursdstion over the subject mater, (2) plan eras ot sposid and (9 ceil eros) none apply hee WHEREFORE, the petton is GRANTED The assed Resolutions dated June16,2000 and November 27, 2000 of te Court of Apple are REVERSED and SETASIDE: The Deion dated November 26199 of the gional Trial Cour, Branch 49, Manila i AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the texperste damages svarded is teduced om P80,000 00 to Po.000.00 as avarded by {he Mewopaltan Trial Court, Branch 24 Mana is Dees dated Apel 3, ‘Yoares Santiago, (Chairperson), Calloo, Sr, end Chico Nozai, 3, eoneur (31 penned by Astcite Justice Renato C. Daeudao and concurred ia by Asuosate Jusigs BA. Adefuie-De la Cour (Bo teied) and Maran & Viarama. Bes CA op. (ha ems {sl pocketed a Civ Case No 152888-CV lathe MEIC Dedson i. at 96 ala ta, (datas hig gs, ates (hig ata. (hn tay. bolas (a. at aes beta ata at