Scribd
Upload
361 views1 page

Baritua V Mercader Case Digest

The bus driven by petitioner fell into a river, killing a passenger named Dominador Mercader. Respondents sued for damages. The Supreme Court held that: 1) The trial court had jurisdiction over the case even though correct fees were not initially paid. 2) The trial court did not err by not ruling on petitioner's late motion for a bill of particulars. 3) There was no evidence the trial judges were biased, as judges have discretion to determine witness credibility. Petitioners were presumed at fault for the passenger's death due to failure to prove extraordinary diligence.

Uploaded by

Camille Angelica
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
361 views1 page

Baritua V Mercader Case Digest

The bus driven by petitioner fell into a river, killing a passenger named Dominador Mercader. Respondents sued for damages. The Supreme Court held that: 1) The trial court had jurisdiction over the case even though correct fees were not initially paid. 2) The trial court did not err by not ruling on petitioner's late motion for a bill of particulars. 3) There was no evidence the trial judges were biased, as judges have discretion to determine witness credibility. Petitioners were presumed at fault for the passenger's death due to failure to prove extraordinary diligence.

Uploaded by

Camille Angelica
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

MENDOZA, CAMILLE ANGELICA

Article III. Section 1. I. Procedural Due Process in Judicial Proceedings as applied to Aspects of the
Proceedings
Baritua v Mercader 350 SCRA 86
FACTS: Dominador Mercader boarded petitioners bus No. 142 with Plate No. 484 EU at Manila Station
as a paying passenger on March 16, 1983. At that time, Dominador Mercader had with him as his baggage,
assorted goods which he likewise loaded in the petitioners' bus.
While Dominador Mercader was on board the bus, the bus fell into the river as a result of which
Dominador Mercader died. The accident was due to the drivers negligent and reckless operation of the bus
as he was driving at a fast speed in wanton disregard of traffic rules and regulations and the prevailing
conditions then existing that caused the bus to fall into the river.
ISSUES/HELD:
1. Whether trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter since the correct amounts of
docket and other lawful fees were not paid by respondents. NO
a. The jurisdiction of a court is determined by the stature in force at the commencement of
the action. Once the jurisdiction of a court attaches, it continues until the case is finally
terminated.
b. The Manchester ruling, which became final in 1987, has no retroactive application and
cannot be invoked in the subject complaint filed in 1984.
Manchester ruling: The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon
the payment of the prescribed docket fee. An amendment of the complaint or
similar pleading will not thereby vest jurisdiction in the court, much less the
payment of the docket fee based on the amounts sought in the pleading.
2.

3.

Whether the CA disregarded petitioners procedural rights when it passed sub silencio on the trial
courts failure to rule frontally on their plea for a bill of particulars. NO
a. The RTC gave the petitioner ten days from March 12, 1985 within which to file a motion
for a bill of particulars. He, however, filed the aforesaid motion eleven days past the
deadline set by the trial court.
Whether the CA disregarded petitioners procedural rights when it did not consider their
contention that the trial judges who heard the case were biased and impartial. NO
a. Judges cannot be expected to rely on the testimonies of every witness. In ascertaining the
facts, they determine who are credible and who are not. The mere fact that the decision
was based on the testimonies of the respondents witnesses does not necessarily mean
that the judge did not consider those of petitioners.
In case of death or injuries to passengers, it is presumed to have been at fault
or to have acted negligently, unless it proves that it observed extraordinary
diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code.

You might also like