View full case

HEIRS OF GEORGE Y. POE v. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY

FACTS:

This case involves a dispute between the petitioners, the Heirs of George Y. Poe, and the respondents, Rhoda Santos and Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. (MICI). George Y. Poe was run over by a truck owned by Rhoda and insured by MICI. The Heirs of George filed a Complaint for damages against Rhoda and MICI, seeking compensation for various expenses and damages. Despite the pre-trial proceedings and submissions of evidence by the petitioners, Rhoda and MICI failed to present their evidence. As a result, the trial court deemed the case submitted for decision and later issued a decision ordering Rhoda and MICI to pay the petitioners.

Rhoda and MICI filed several motions and appeals before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA). The RTC initially granted their motion for reconsideration and modified its decision, dismissing the case against MICI. However, the RTC later reinstated its original decision based on the petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

Respondent MICI filed a Notice of Appeal against the orders and decisions of the RTC but was denied by the trial court. The court also granted the petitioners' Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution. MICI filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA, which was granted. The CA held that the Notice of Appeal was filed within the reglementary period. The CA ordered the trial court to approve MICI's Notice of Appeal and refrain from executing the writ of execution. The CA denied the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.

The petitioners then filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion. The primary issue for resolution was whether the Notice of Appeal was filed within the reglementary period as set by the Rules of Court. The petitioners relied on the Neypes v. Court of Appeals case, which established the fresh period rule for filing an appeal.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the respondent Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that private respondent could file a Petition for Certiorari even though its Motion for Reconsideration was still pending resolution with the lower court.

  2. Whether or not the respondent Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that the private respondent had filed its Notice of Appeal with the trial court within the reglementary period.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court held that respondent Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. (MICI) did file its Notice of Appeal within the reglementary period as the appeal period should be reckoned from the receipt of the order denying the motion for reconsideration, under the fresh period rule established in Neypes v. Court of Appeals.

  2. The Supreme Court affirmed that respondent MICI’s Notice of Appeal was timely filed and remand to the lower court was unnecessary due to the case's prolonged duration and completeness of records, deciding the case on its merits for the swift administration of justice. Rhoda Santos and MICI were found liable to pay jointly and severally the determined damages to the petitioners.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Fresh Period Rule The 15-day appeal period is counted from the receipt of the order denying the motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration, not from the original judgment.

  2. Liability in Insurance Contracts An insurer in an indemnity contract for third-party liability is directly liable to the injured party but cannot be held solidarily liable beyond the insurance coverage if sufficiently established.

  3. Burden of Proof In civil cases, the party asserting a fact has the burden of proving it. Failure to present the necessary evidence to support an assertion results in an adverse inference.

  4. Actual Damages Compensation for loss of earning capacity follows a defined formula, involving life expectancy and net earnings (gross earnings less necessary living expenses).

  5. Moral Damages Awarded for the mental anguish and emotional suffering endured by the immediate family of the deceased.

  6. Attorney’s Fees Granted when a party is compelled to litigate due to an unjustified act of the opposing party. The awarded amount should be reasonable.

DISPOSITION:

The Court ordered Rhoda Santos and Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. to pay jointly and severally the amounts specified for funeral expenses, actual damages for loss of earning capacity, moral damages, death indemnity, and attorney's fees.