G.R. No. L-29749 April 15, 1988
PLACIDA PEZA et al., petitioners, vs. HON. FEDERICO C. ALIKPALA, etc., et al., respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a vehicular accident where a vehicle owned by the partnership Diman & Company, driven by Perfecto Amar, killed two children. The vehicle was insured under a comprehensive policy by Empire Insurance Co., Inc. Empire denied the claim filed by managing partner Placida Peza, asserting that the driver was not an “authorized driver” under the policy as his license had been confiscated and he only possessed an expired temporary operator’s permit (TVR) at the time of the accident. Peza settled with the victims’ family for P6,200.00 and subsequently sued Empire to recover this amount as actual damages, plus moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
During trial, Empire established the fact of Amar’s expired TVR. Plaintiffs attempted to present rebuttal evidence to show that the confiscation of Amar’s license by the Land Transportation Commission agent was wrongful and that his license had been renewed. The respondent Judge sustained Empire’s objection, ruling this proffered evidence irrelevant, and later denied a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing these orders as grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in excluding the plaintiffs’ rebuttal evidence and in proceeding to render a judgment on the merits while the certiorari petition was pending.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On the exclusion of evidence, the Court held the respondent Judge correctly ruled the proffered rebuttal testimony irrelevant. Whether the LTC agent was correct in confiscating the license was immaterial; the material and undisputed fact was that the license was confiscated and Amar only held an expired TVR when the accident occurred. Proof of a subsequent renewal did not alter this operative fact. Even if the ruling were erroneous, it constituted at most an error of judgment, not a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, which is the proper scope of certiorari.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that rulings on the admissibility of evidence are interlocutory and cannot be the subject of a separate appeal via certiorari; they must be assigned as errors in an appeal from the final judgment. Notably, the respondent Judge proceeded to render a final judgment dismissing the case for failure of proof. The plaintiffs did not appeal this judgment; instead, they filed a motion to cite the judge for contempt for deciding the case during the pendency of their certiorari petition. The Court held that the mere pendency of a certiorari petition does not interrupt proceedings in the lower court absent a restraining order. The judge had a duty to decide the case within the mandated period. Consequently, the judgment became final and executory due to the plaintiffs’ failure to appeal, which precluded any relief. The judge’s actions did not constitute contempt.