7/25/2019 G. R. No. 129919. February 6, 2002

1/4

FIRST DIVISION

[G. R. No. 129919. February 6, 2002]

DOMINION INSURANCE CORPORAION,petitioner, vs. COUR OF

APPEA!S, RODO!FO S. GUE"ARRA, a#$ FERNANDO

AUSRIA, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PARDO, J.%

&e Ca'e

This is an appeal via certiorari[1]from the decision of the Court of

Appeals[]affirmin! the decision["]of the Re!ional Trial Court# $ranch %%# San

Fernando# &ampan!a# 'hich ordered petitioner Dominion Insurance

Corporation (Dominion) to pa* Rodolfo S+,ue-arra (,ue-arra) the sum of

&1./#%0"+2representin! the total amount ad-anced 3* ,ue-arra in the

pa*ment of the claims of Dominions clients+

&e Fa()'

The facts# as found 3* the Court of Appeals# are as follo's4

On January 25,

1991, plaintiff Rodolfo S. Guevarra instituted Civil Case No. 8855 for

sum of money aainst defendant !ominion "nsuran#e Corporation. $laintiff sou%t to

re#over t%ereunder t%e sum of $15&,'().9* +%i#% %e #laimed to %ave advan#ed in %is

#apa#ity as manaer of defendant to satisfy #ertain #laims filed y defendants #lients.

"n its traverse, defendant denied any liaility to plaintiff and asserted a #ounter#laim

for $2'9,&(2.5), representin premiums t%at plaintiff alleedly failed to remit.

On -uust 8, 1991, defendant filed a t%irdparty #omplaint aainst /ernando -ustria,

+%o, at t%e time relevant to t%e #ase, +as its Reional 0anaer for Central

uon area.

"n due time, t%irdparty defendant -ustria filed %is ans+er.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/129919.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/129919.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/129919.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/129919.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/129919.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/129919.htm#_edn1

7/25/2019 G. R. No. 129919. February 6, 2002

2/4

3%ereafter t%e pretrial #onferen#e +as set on t%e follo+in dates4 O#toer 18, 1991,

Novemer 12, 1991, 0ar#% 29, 1991, !e#emer 12, 1991, January 1(, 1992, January

29, 1992, /eruary 28, 1992, 0ar#% 1(, 1992 and -pril &, 1992, in all of +%i#% dates

no pretrial #onferen#e +as %eld. 3%e re#ord s%o+s t%at e#ept for t%e settins

on O#toer 18, 1991, January 1(, 1992 and 0ar#% 1(, 1992 +%i#% +ere #an#elled att%e instan#e of defendant, t%irdparty defendant and plaintiff, respe#tively, t%e rest

+ere postponed upon 6oint re7uest of t%e parties.

On 0ay 22, 1992 t%e #ase +as aain #alled for pretrial #onferen#e. Only plaintiff and

#ounsel +ere present. !espite due noti#e, defendant and #ounsel did not appear,

alt%ou% a messener, Roy Gamoa, sumitted to t%e trial #ourt a %and+ritten note

sent to %im y defendants #ounsel +%i#% instru#ted %im to re7uest for postponement.

$laintiffs #ounsel o6e#ted to t%e desired postponement and moved to %ave defendant

de#lared as in default. 3%is +as ranted y t%e trial #ourt in t%e follo+in order4

OR!R

%en t%is #ase +as #alled for pretrial t%is afternoon only plaintiff and %is #ounsel

-tty. Romeo 0alalan appeared. %en s%o+n a note dated 0ay 21, 1992 addressed

to a #ertain Roy +%o +as re7uested to as: for postponement,

-tty. 0alalan viorously o6e#ted to any postponement on t%e round t%at t%e note

is ut a mere s#rap of paper and moved t%at t%e defendant #orporation e de#lared as

in default for its failure to appear in #ourt despite due noti#e.

/indin t%e veral motion of plaintiffs #ounsel to e meritorious and #onsiderin t%at

t%e pretrial #onferen#e %as een repeatedly postponed on motion of t%e defendant

Corporation, t%e defendant !ominion "nsuran#e Corporation is %erey de#lared ;as< in

default and plaintiff is allo+ed to present %is eviden#e on June 1&, 1992 at 94** o#lo#:

in t%e mornin.

3%e plaintiff and %is #ounsel are notified of t%is order in open #ourt.

SO OR!R!.

$laintiff presented %is eviden#e on June 1&, 1992. 3%is +as follo+ed y a +ritten

offer of do#umentary e%iits on July 8 and a supplemental offer of additional

e%iits on July 1), 1992. 3%e e%iits +ere admitted in eviden#e in an order

dated July 1(, 1992.

7/25/2019 G. R. No. 129919. February 6, 2002

3/4

On -uust (, 1992 defendant #orporation filed a 0O3"ON 3O "/3 OR!R O/

!/-=3. "t alleed t%erein t%at t%e failure of #ounsel to attend t%e pretrial

#onferen#e +as due to an unavoidale #ir#umstan#e and t%at #ounsel %ad sent %is

representative on t%at date to inform t%e trial #ourt of %is inaility to appear. 3%e

0otion +as ve%emently opposed y plaintiff.

On -uust 25,1992 t%e trial #ourt denied defendants motion for reasons, amon

ot%ers, t%at it +as neit%er verified nor supported y an affidavit of merit and t%at it

furt%er failed to allee or spe#ify t%e fa#ts #onstitutin %is meritorious defense.

On Septemer 28, 1992 defendant moved for re#onsideration of t%e aforesaid order.

/or t%e first time #ounsel revealed to t%e trial #ourt t%at t%e reason for %is

nonappearan#e at t%e pretrial #onferen#e +as %is illness. -n -ffidavit of 0erit

ee#uted y its e#utive >i#e$resident purportin to eplain its meritorious defense+as atta#%ed to t%e said 0otion. Just t%e same, in an Order dated Novemer 1), 1992,

t%e trial #ourt denied said 0otion.

On Novemer 18, 1992, t%e #ourt a 7uo rendered 6udment as follo+s4

?R/OR, premises #onsidered, 6udment is %erey rendered orderin4

1. 3%e defendant !ominion "nsuran#e Corporation to pay plaintiff t%e sum of

$15&,'().9* representin t%e total amount advan#ed y plaintiff in t%e payment of t%e#laims of defendants #lients@

2. 3%e defendant to pay plaintiff $1*,***.** as and y +ay of attorneys fees@

). 3%e dismissal of t%e #ounter#laim of t%e defendant and t%e t%irdparty #omplaint@

'. 3%e defendant to pay t%e #osts of suit.[%]

On Decem3er 1%# 1# Dominion appealed the decision to the Court of

Appeals+[.]

On 5ul* 1# 1/# the Court of Appeals promul!ated a decision affirmin!

that of the trial court+[/]On Septem3er "# 1/# Dominion filed 'ith the Court of

Appeals a motion for reconsideration+[0]On 5ul* 1/# 10# the Court of Appeals

denied the motion+[6]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/129919.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/129919.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/129919.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/129919.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/129919.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/129919.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/129919.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/129919.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/129919.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/129919.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/129919.htm#_edn8

7/25/2019 G. R. No. 129919. February 6, 2002

4/4

7ence# this appeal+[]

&e I''ue'

The issues raised are4 (1) 'hether respondent ,ue-arra acted 'ithin his

authorit* as a!ent for petitioner# and () 'hether respondent ,ue-arra is

entitled to reim3ursement of amounts he paid out of his personal mone* in

settlin! the claims of se-eral insured+

&e Cour)*' Ru+#-

The petition is 'ithout merit+

$* the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/129919.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/129919.htm#_edn9