G.R. No.

L-35697-99 April 15, 1988

ELADlA DE LIMA, POTENCIANO REQUIJO, NEMESIO FLORES, REYNALDO REQUIJO, DOMINADOR
REQUIJO and MARIO REQUIJO, petitioners,
vs.
LAGUNA TAYABAS CO., CLARO SAMONTE, SANTIAGO SYJUCO, INC., (SEVEN-UP BOTTLING CO., OF THE
PHILIPPINES) and PORVENIR ABAJAR BARRETO, respondents.
FACTS: On june , 1958, Laguna Tayabas Bus Company collided with the delivery truck of 7 up Bottling Co.
which resulted in the death of Petra de la Cruz and serious physical injuries of Eladia de Lima and
Nemesio Flores, all passengers of the LTB bus. Three civil suits were filed against herein respondents
which were consolidated for trial before the Court of First Instance of Laguna (San Pablo City).
On December 27, 1963, the court a quo rendered its decision granting a minimal indemnity to the
plaintiffs. All of the plaintiffs voluntarily desisted from appealing the decission by reason of financial
necessity. Later, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but their motion is not acted by court
a quo. In the motion of petitioners dated December 29, 1971 filed with the Court of Appeals,
2
they
sought for an immediate decision of the case with a prayer for the granting of legal interest from the
date of the decision of the court a quo and for the increase to P12,000.00 of the civil indemnity of
P3,000.00 awarded for the death of Petra de la Cruz.
The Appellate Court denied the motion for reconsideration holding that since the plaintiffs did not
appeal from the failure of the court a quo to award interest on the damages and that the court on its
own discretion awarded such interest in view of Art. 2210 of the Civil Code, the effectivity of the interest
should not be rolled back to the time the decision of the court a quo was rendered.
5

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the petitioner are precluded from questioning the ruling of the appellate court
after their failure to appeal the decission of the court a quo
RULINGS: This Court is inclined to adopt a liberal stance in this case as We have done in previous
decisions where We have held that litigations should, as much as possible be decided on their merits
and not on technicality.
10

We take note of the fact that petitioners are litigating as paupers. Although they may not have
appealed, they had filed their motion for reconsideration with the court a quo which unfortunately did
not act on it. By reason of their indigence, they failed to appeal but petitioners De Lima and Requijo had
filed their manifestation making reference to the law and jurisprudence upon which they base their
prayer for relief while petitioner Flores filed his brief.
Pleadings as well as remedial laws should be construed liberally in order that the litigants may have
ample opportunity to pursue their respective claims and that a possible denial of substantial justice due
to legal technicalities may be avoided.
11

In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence the indemnity of P3,000.00 should be increased to
P30,000.00 and not P12,000.00 as prayed for by petitioner.To mitigate the impact of such a great delay
in this case the Court finds ample justification in the aforesaid award for interest and indemnity. We
hope this relief is not too late.Petition GRANTED.