G.R. No. L-79010. May 23, 1988. GENEROSO CORTES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DIVISION, DAVID S. ODILAO JR., and BASILIO IGOT, respondents.
FACTS

Generoso Cortes owned a fishing boat beached on Mactan Island. David S. Odilao Jr., the Collector of Customs and chairman of a committee preparing for a historical reenactment of the Battle of Mactan, needed to clear the site of obstructions, including Cortes’s boat. A week before the event, Odilao spoke with Cortes’s wife and brother-in-law, Imigdio Llanos, explaining the need to move the boat. Llanos suggested waiting for high tide, but Odilao insisted that if the owner could not transfer it, he would have it transferred. On April 26, 1979, a payloader, operated under the supervision of Barrio Captain Basilio Igot, was brought to the site. During the lifting operation, the boat broke into two and was destroyed, though its engines were saved.
Cortes filed a damages suit against Odilao and Igot in the Court of First Instance (later Regional Trial Court) of Cebu. The trial court rendered a decision on February 16, 1983, ordering Odilao to pay Cortes actual damages and attorney’s fees, while absolving Igot. Odilao’s notice of appeal was filed late and was denied by the trial court. His subsequent Petition for Relief from Judgment was also dismissed. Odilao appealed this dismissal to the Court of Appeals, which, on March 19, 1987, granted the petition, vacated the trial court’s order, and reversed its decision on the merits, leading Cortes to file this petition for review.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting Odilao’s Petition for Relief from Judgment, thereby allowing a tardy appeal.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s factual findings and its conclusion that Odilao was liable for damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the trial court’s decision. On the first issue, the Court found that the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that excusable negligence justified relief from judgment. Odilao’s original counsel, appointed as an RTC judge, failed to withdraw his appearance. Upon learning of the adverse decision, he promptly informed Odilao, but official travel delays caused the late appeal. The Court emphasized that rules of procedure should not be rigidly applied to override substantial justice, and a short delay, under these circumstances, did not warrant outright dismissal, especially given the appeal’s ostensible merit.
On the second issue, the Court held the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the trial court’s factual findings and conclusion on liability was untenable. The evidence established that Odilao, as committee chairman, initiated the boat’s removal, explicitly telling Cortes’s relatives he would arrange the transfer if they could not. The payloader’s use was a direct consequence of his instructions. The Court found the subsequent destruction of the boat during the reckless lifting operation attributable to Odilao’s actions. His defenses—claiming the boat was a derelict, that consent was given, or that he was not negligent—implicitly admitted his involvement in causing the removal. Therefore, Odilao was legally liable for the damages resulting from the destruction of Cortes’s property.