G.R. No. L-29688 October 9, 1986
FELICIDAD AGUILAR, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERLINDA Q. CHAN, et al., ISABEL Q. JUECO and FORTUNATO JUECO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiff Felicidad Aguilar filed a complaint for damages arising from a vehicular accident against four defendants: Erlinda Q. Chan (truck owner), Isabel Q. Jueco (bus operator), Fortunato Jueco (manager), and driver Melanio Queyangco. After the first three defendants filed their answers, the case was set for pre-trial. Notices were sent to their counsel at the addresses on record, but neither the defendants nor their counsel appeared at the scheduled pre-trial. Consequently, the trial court declared them in default and allowed Aguilar to present evidence ex-parte, leading to a default judgment ordering all defendants to pay damages jointly and severally.
The defendants-appellants (Chan and the Juecos) filed petitions for relief from the default judgment. Their counsel for Chan claimed he was never served a copy of the judgment and learned of it only through co-defendant Fortunato Jueco. Counsel for the Juecos received a copy only ten days before filing the petition. The trial court denied these petitions. The case was elevated, eventually certified to the Supreme Court as involving pure questions of law.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court correctly denied the petitions for relief and upheld the default judgment. A secondary issue involves the propriety of the damages awarded and the liability of an unserved defendant.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the petitions but modified the judgment. The Court clarified that the so-called “petitions for relief” were, in reality, timely motions for a new trial on the ground of excusable negligence, as the default judgment was not yet final when they were filed. After reviewing the allegations, the Court found no sufficient ground to set aside the lower court’s order of denial, as the failure to appear at the pre-trial despite notice constituted a waiver of their right to participate.
Proceeding to review the evidence on damages, the Court found the award justified. The evidence established that Aguilar suffered a fractured forearm and other injuries from the overturning and burning of the “Forisa” bus, causing permanent disability and loss of earning capacity. However, since Aguilar did not appeal, the Court could not increase the total award despite evidence that her actual damages exceeded the amount granted.
The Court modified the judgment in two respects. First, it specified that the award of P5,750 constituted actual damages and attorney’s fees, not moral and exemplary damages as originally labeled. Second, it excluded defendant Melanio Queyangco from liability, as the record showed he was never served with summons; therefore, the court never acquired jurisdiction over his person. The modified judgment was affirmed.