PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO., INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES ANTONIO ESTEBAN and GLORIA ESTEBAN, respondents.
FACTS
On July 30, 1968, respondent spouses Antonio and Gloria Esteban met an accident when their jeep ran over a mound of earth and fell into an open trench, an excavation for PLDT’s underground conduit system. They filed a damages suit against PLDT, alleging the trench was left uncovered at night without warning lights or signs, causing Gloria facial and bodily injuries and Antonio cut lips. PLDT denied liability, contending the spouses were negligent and that L.R. Barte and Company, the independent contractor which undertook the excavation, was solely responsible under their agreement.
The trial court ruled for the spouses, ordering PLDT to pay damages and holding Barte, as third-party defendant, liable to reimburse PLDT. Both PLDT and the spouses appealed. The Court of Appeals initially reversed the trial court, dismissing the complaint and absolving PLDT, finding the spouses negligent. Upon the spouses’ motion, the CA later set aside its first decision and reinstated the trial court’s judgment. PLDT appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the CA’s first decision had become final and that it cannot be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) Whether the Court of Appeals’ initial decision had attained finality, thereby rendering its subsequent reversal void; and (2) Whether PLDT, as principal, can be held liable for the negligence of its independent contractor, Barte.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of PLDT, reinstating the Court of Appeals’ original decision which dismissed the complaint. On the procedural issue, the Court held that the spouses’ second motion for reconsideration before the CA was filed out of time. The reglementary period for appeal or for filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be extended. Since the CA’s resolution denying the first motion for reconsideration was received on February 22, 1980, the spouses had only until February 27, 1980, to file an appeal to the Supreme Court. Their filing of a second motion for reconsideration on March 7, 1980, did not toll the running of the period. Consequently, the CA’s first decision and resolution had become final and executory, and the CA’s subsequent resolution reversing itself was issued without jurisdiction.
On the substantive issue of liability, the Court applied the established rule that the employer or principal is generally not liable for the negligence of its independent contractor. An independent contractor is one who exercises independent employment and contracts to do a piece of work according to his own methods, free from the control of the employer except as to the result. The contract between PLDT and Barte explicitly stipulated that Barte was an independent contractor and that PLDT would not be answerable for any accidents arising from Barte’s negligence. The evidence showed Barte had undertaken the excavation work. Therefore, PLDT could not be held vicariously liable. The Court further emphasized that the burden of proving negligence rests on the plaintiff, and the spouses failed to discharge this burden against PLDT itself.
