CA gives nod to QC court to hear case vs ABS-CBN

The Court of Appeals. FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines—The Court of Appeals has allowed the Quezon City Regional Trial Court to proceed with the hearing and resolution of a civil  suit against ABS-CBN Corporation for the death of a mother and her six-year-old daughter who were struck by its service vehicle along Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City 12 years ago.

In an 11-page decision, the appeals court’s 4th Division through Associate Justice Leoncia Real-Dimagiba, denied ABS-CBN’s bid for a temporary restraining order (TRO) or a writ of preliminary injunction to stop Judge Edgar Dalmacio Santos, presiding judge of Branch 222 of QC RTC, from further hearing the complaint for recovery and damages for death and physical injuries filed by Manolito Roxas.

Roxas, in his complaint, asked the trial court to order the network to pay him the amount of P17.34 million in damages for the death of his wife, Estela, and daughter Pauline.

The incident happened on March 11, 2002. Antonio Magat was driving a Nissan Power van with plate number UKW 455 registered in the name of the network.

While the vehicle was traversing Commonwealth Avenue, it spun out of control and hit Manolito, his wife Estela and daughters Pauline and two-year-old Olline.

They were immediately brought to the New Era General Hospital but due to severe injuries sustained, Estela and Pauline were declared dead on arrival.

Roxas said he was forced to file a damage suit after ABS-CBN ignored their repeated demands for indemnification for the deaths and injuries of his loved ones.

ABS-CBN. however, argued that Roxas has no basis to seek damages from the company since Magat’s employer is Human Resources Assistance Network Inc., (HRANI).

HRANI is an independent contractor service agency, which provides the company with workers to perform various tasks, including drivers of vehicles of ABS-CBN per service contract dated February 1993.

ABS-CBN argued that Magat was under full control and supervision of HRANI at the time of the accident and that it had no participation in the selection, supervision or training of Magat as employee or driver.

Subsequently, ABS-CBN moved for the preliminary hearing of affirmative defenses,  which was granted by the trial court.

An affirmative defense has been defined as an allegation of a new matter, which while hypothetically admitting the material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him.

On June 25, 2010, the QC RTC denied the affirmative defense made by ABS-CBN, paving for a full-blown trial of the damage suit filed by Roxas.

This prompted ABS-CBN to elevate the case before the appeals court where it asked the issuance of a TRO to enjoin the trial court from further hearing Roxas complaint against it.

The network said the lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion when it disregarded the pieces of evidence it presented to support its claim it is not the employer of Magat.

The appeals court, in its ruling, said ABS-CBN’s claim that HRANI should be held primarily liable for damages considering that it admitted that it is the employer of Magat is irrelevant.

The fact that the network is the registered owner of the vehicle that hit the victims is enough to hold them liable for the accident.

“The fact that petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle being driven by Magat during the accident is sufficient to hold petitioner (ABS-CBN) liable under the Article 2180 (in relation to Article 2176) of the Civil Code,” the appeals court said.

The appeals court noted that in  Erenzo et al. v. Jepte, the SC held that “the main aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify the owner so that if any accident happens, or that any damage or injury is caused by the vehicle on the public highways, responsibility therefor can be fixed in a definite individual, the registered owner.”

“The assailed orders dated June 25 2010 and October 4, 2010 are hereby affirmed. The Court a quo is hereby directed to hear the case with reasonable dispatch until its termination,” the CA declared.

Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Amelita Tolentino and Ricardo Rosario.