G.R. No. L-40948 June 29, 1976
Gregorio Estrada, petitioner, vs. Honorable Francisco Consolacion, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao, Br. II, Corazon Ramirez Uy, and Lucio Galaura, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Gregorio Estrada filed a complaint for damages against respondents, the owner and driver of a passenger jeepney, as common carriers, following the death of his wife who was a passenger in their vehicle. The complaint alleged that the driver’s negligence caused a collision with a pick-up truck, resulting in fatal injuries. In their answer, respondents admitted the death but asserted that the proximate cause was the negligence of third-party drivers of two other vehicles whose collision forced one into the jeepney’s lane. They attached a police investigator’s sketch, his affidavit, and sworn statements from the drivers involved to support their claim of third-party negligence. Respondents then filed a motion for summary judgment on their counterclaim for damages, arguing no genuine issue existed except the amount they were owed.
Petitioner opposed the motion, invoking the legal presumption under Article 1756 of the Civil Code that a common carrier is presumed negligent in case of a passenger’s death, a presumption the carrier must overcome by proving extraordinary diligence. Notwithstanding this opposition, the respondent judge granted the motion for summary judgment. The court’s order decreed that respondents had judgment against the petitioner for damages, with the amount to be determined in a subsequent trial limited solely to that issue.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants (respondents) on their counterclaim for damages.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the challenged order, and remanded the case for trial. The Court held that the grant of summary judgment was a grave abuse of discretion because a genuine and material issue of fact existed. The core issue was whether the carrier, respondent Corazon Ramirez Uy, exercised the extraordinary diligence required by law for the safety of passengers. Respondents’ defense relied on the alleged negligence of third parties to rebut the statutory presumption of negligence against the carrier. However, the documents they submitted—the police sketch, affidavit, and sworn statements—were unverified and constituted hearsay evidence as they were not based on the personal knowledge of the movants (the respondents themselves). Summary judgment is proper only when, based on the pleadings, affidavits, and admissions, there is no genuine issue requiring a full trial. Here, the evidence presented by respondents was insufficient to conclusively establish the absence of their own negligence or to overcome the legal presumption against them as a matter of law. The veracity of the third-party negligence claim and the carrier’s own conduct remained factual controversies that required a trial for proper adjudication. The lower court’s order effectively precluded the petitioner from presenting evidence on the central issue of the carrier’s liability, thereby violating his right to due process.