You are on page 1of 2

Peza v.

Alikpala
G.R. No. L-29749 April 15, 1988 petitioners PLACIDA PEZA et al. respondents HON. FEDERICO C. ALIKPALA, etc., et al. J. Narvasa

argue the merits of a cause on appeal due to an summary Loss by a party of the right to obsessive pre-occupation with a question of admissibility of evidence. facts of the case
Two children ran across the path of a vehicle as it was running along the national highway at Laguna. They were killed. The vehicle, a Chevrolet Carry-All, belonged to Partnership Diman & Company, driven by Perfecto Amar. It was insured with the Empire Insurance Co., Inc. under a so-called 'comprehensive coverage" policy, loss by theft. Peza, as the managing partner of Diman & Co. filed a claim w/ Empire for Php 6,200, amounting from the out-of-court settlement Peza negotiated w/ the father of the children. Empires defense is that the suit was anchored on the explicit requirement in the policy limiting the operation of the insured vehicle to the authorized driver which provides that that the person driving is permitted in accordance with the licensing or other laws or regulations to drive the Motor vehicle or has been so permitted and is not disqualified by order of the Court of Law of by reason of any enactment or regulation in that behalf from driving such Motor Vehicle. The driver only had a temporary operator's permit (TVR) already expired his drivers license having earlier been confiscated by an agent of the Land Transportation Commission for an alleged violation of Land Transportation and Traffic Rules, he was not permitted by law and was in truth disqualified to operate any motor vehicle; and this operated to relieve Empire from liability under its policy. Petitioner argues that the issuance of the TVR is proof that there was no reason for the confiscation of the drivers license and that Amars license has not expired but has been renewed. Judge denied plaintiff request for time to present additional rebuttal evidence in proof of the same propositions. Hence this case seeking certiorari.

issue
WON Empire is liable? NO.

ratio
Plaintiffs proof irrelevant Whether the LTC agent was correct or not in his opinion that driver Amar had violated some traffic regulation warranting confiscation of his license and issuance of a TVR in lieu thereof, this would not alter the undisputed fact that Amar's license had indeed been confiscated and a TVR issued to him, and the TVR had already expired at the time that the vehicle being operated by him killed two children by accident. Neither would proof of the renewal of Amar's license change the fact that it had really been earlier confiscated by the LTC agent. No Grave Abuse of Discretion Even positing error in the Judge's analysis of the evidence attempted to be introduced and his rejection thereof, it is clear that it was at most an error of judgment, not such an error as may be branded a grave abuse of discretion Petitioners failed to perfect appeal The mere pendency of a special civil action for certiorari, commenced in relation to a case pending before a lower Court, does not interrupt the course of the latter when there is no writ of injunction restraining it. In their eagerness to prove the respondent Judge wrong in sustaining objections to their proffered proofs, and to have him punished for contempt for rendering judgment on the merits adversely to them despite his being a respondent in their certiorari suit before this Court, the plaintiff failed to perfect an appeal from that
1

judgment on the merits. Judge Alikpala's judgment has thus become and executory, and this is an additional factor precluding relief to the petitioners.

You might also like