Facts
On 28 August 1996, a vehicular accident occurred on the Davao-Agusan Road in Davao City in which a truck owned by the Maglana Rice and Corn Mill, Inc. ("MRCMI") rear-ended a car owned by the spouses Manuel and Annie Tan ("the Tan spouses"). Consequently, the Tan spouses demanded reimbursement from the MRCMI of the costs for the repair of their vehicle. The MRCMI, however, refused to pay.
Consequently, the Tan spouses sued the MRCMI for damages before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in Davao City. During trial, the parties present two (2) different versions of how the accident transpired. The Tan spouses alleged that their car was stopped in traffic along with other vehicles when the MRCMI's truck crashed into its rear portion. On the other hand the MRCMI asserted that the Tan spouses' car suddenly cut in front of its truck, which was unable to stop in time as a result.
Ruling of the Trial Court: After trial, the MTCC awarded the Tan spouses PhP 83,750.00 for the damage done to their vehicle; PhP 15,000.00 as attorney's fees; and costs of the suit.
Ruling of the Appellate Courts: Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Davao City and the Court of Appeals both affirmed the ruling of the MTCC.
Hence, the MRCMI file a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issues
(1) [Remedial Law] Whether or not a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy; and
(2) [Torts and Damages] Whether or not the MRCMI is liable for treble costs.
Held
(1) No. The case under consideration does not raise purely questions of law.
(2) Yes. The present action is a frivolous suit justifying the imposition of treble costs.
Ratio
(1) Rule 45, Section 1 of the Rules of Court requires that petitions for certiorari shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. A question, to be one of law, must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented. There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on certain state of facts. On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts.
In the present case, the matter elevated for review was the determination of the real cause of the collision between the Tan spouses' car and the MRCMI's truck, which is a question of fact, not of law. Jurisprudence has recognized a number of exceptions to Rule 45, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, including when:
1. The findings of the lower courts are ground entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;
2. Inferences made by the lower courts are manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;
3. There is grave abuse of discretion;
4. The judgment of the lower courts is based on a misapprehension of facts;
5. The factual determinations of the lower courts are conflicting;
6. In making its findings, the court a quo went beyond the issues of the case or such findings are contrary to the admissions of the parties;
7. The findings are contrary to those of the trial court;
8. The factual findings made by the lower courts were made without citation of the specific evidence on which they are made;
9. The facts set forth in the Petition, as well as in the Petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the Respondent;
10. The findings of fact are based on a supposed lack of evidence, which are in fact present;
11. The lower courts overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.
The present case does not fall under any of these exceptions.
(2) Rule 142, Section 3 of the Rules of Court reads:
Section 3. Cost when appeal frivolous. — Where an action or appeal is found to be frivolous, double or treble cost may be imposed on the plaintiff or appellant, which shall be paid by his attorney, if so ordered by the court.
A frivolous appeal is one where no error can be brought before the appellate court, or whose result is obvious and the arguments of error are totally bereft of merit, or which is prosecuted in bad faith, or which is contrary to established law and unsupported by a reasoned, colorable argument for change. It is frivolous, too, when it does not present any justiciable question, or is one so readily recognizable as devoid of merit on the face of the record that there is little, if any, prospect that it can succeed.
In the present case all three (3) lower courts unanimously upheld the police report placing the responsibility for the collision on the part of the MRCMI. However, despite its obvious fault, the MRCMI insisted on pressing its case, to the point of elevating the factual question of liability to the Supreme Court. Hence, the action was frivolous and award of treble costs is in order.
Other instances when the court may award treble costs include:
1. To stress dislike for "any scheme to prolong litigation" or for "an unwarranted effort to avoid the implementation of a judgment painstakingly arrived at;";
2. To sanction an appeal that was obviously interposed "for the sole purpose of delay;"
3. To disapprove of the party’s "lack of good and honest intentions, as well as the evasive manner by which it was able to frustrate the adverse party’s claim for a decade;"
4. To stifle a party’s deplorable propensity to "go to extreme lengths to evade complying with their duties under the law and the orders of this Court" and thereby to cause the case to drag "for far too long with practically no end in sight;"
5. To condemn the counsel’s frantic search for "any ground to resuscitate his client’s lost cause;" and
6. To reiterate that a litigant, although his right to initiate an action in court is fully respected, is not permitted to initiate similar suits once his case has been adjudicated by a competent court in a valid final judgment, in the hope of securing a favorable ruling "for this will result to endless litigations detrimental to the administration of justice."
