Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50155:gr-169801-2007&amp;catid=1496&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:46:03+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 169801 - Republic of the Phil. etc. v. Dona Tilla R. Bautista, et al.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH-REGIONAL HEALTH OFFICE NO. 3, Petitioner, v. DONATILLA R. BAUTISTA, doing business under the name and style "RESCUE SECURITY SERVICES" and ELENA R. PALMA, Branch Manager, Respondents.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the Court of Appeals' Decision1 in CA-G.R. CV No. 69674 which affirmed the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pampanga, Branch 43. The RTC Decision dismissed petitioner's action for damages against respondents.
The following factual antecedents are matters of record.
Petitioner repeatedly notified Rescue Security about the loss. The last of such notification was on 5 July 1996 through a letter sent by Dr. Trinidad.7 On 9 August 1996, petitioner sent Rescue Security a notice of termination of the contract of services. Rescue Security refused to pay the total amount of loss, prompting petitioner to institute an action for damages against respondents based on Rescue Security's contractual undertaking that it would guarantee the payment of any loss or damage to petitioner's property. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 11099 and raffled to the RTC of Pampanga, Branch 43.
Respondent Bautista did not appear despite proper service of summons on her. Only respondent Palma filed an answer8 and participated in the proceedings.
On 28 April 2000, the RTC rendered a Decision10 dismissing the complaint. While the trial court found that the medicines worth P4,220,293.35 were indeed lost, it ruled that petitioner's evidence failed to establish that the medicines had already been placed inside the storeroom when the robbery took place. The trial court found that there was no proof that the medicines had been placed under the control and protection of Rescue Security since the latter was not furnished with an inventory of the medicines. The trial court also based the dismissal of petitioner's complaint on its conclusion that petitioner failed to notify Rescue Security of the loss within 48 hours from its occurrence, although the RTC decision did not elaborate on this finding.
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, the court hereby renders its decision in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
In view hereof, the prayers for the payment to the plaintiff by the defendant of actual and exemplary damages and costs of suit are DENIED for lack of merit.
Likewise, the prayers of defendant Palma for award of moral, attorney's and appearance fees are denied for lack of merit.
Just the same, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of petitioner's complaint because of petitioner's failure to notify Rescue Security of the fact of loss within 48 hours from the incident.
Hence, the instant petition which raises the sole issue of whether the Court of Appeals was correct in concluding that petitioner failed to comply with the 48-hour notice requirement.
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the RTC Decision did not elaborate on its finding that petitioner failed to comply with the required notification and that the testimonies of witnesses on this factual issue were conflicting. Thus, the Court of Appeals was "constrained to uphold the trial court's finding that there was no notification about the loss."15 Furthermore, the Court of Appeals deduced from the contents of the 5 July 1996 letter sent by Dr. Trinidad that petitioner had notified the security guard only after two weeks from the incident.
On the other hand, petitioner insists that based on the records of the case, Rescue Security, as well as its security guards posted at the DOH premises and its personnel officer, had actual notice of the incident on the day the loss was discovered.
An examination of the decisions of the courts below warrants the review of their common finding that Rescue Security was not notified within 48 hours about the loss of the medicines. The RTC Decision did not cite the specific evidence on which it relied in concluding that petitioner failed to immediately notify Rescue Security. The Court of Appeals overlooked relevant testimonial evidence, which, if properly appreciated, would justify a different conclusion.
On cross-examination, respondent Palma likewise testified that Liangco reported to her about the inspection he had conducted on the DOH premises on the day of the alleged loss.19 Her testimony corroborated Liangco's testimony that on the day of the discovery of the loss, Liangco was summoned to the DOH premises where the reported loss took place.
The Court of Appeals sweepingly brushed aside Liangco's testimony and was persuaded by Macabulos' rebuttal testimony denying that she had spoken to Liangco about the incident. The rule is that the positive and categorical assertions of witnesses generally prevail over bare denials. Such accordance of greater probative value to evidence that is positive in nature than that which is negative in character is a time-honored principle.20 Denial is a self-serving negative evidence that cannot be given greater weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.21 Accordingly, Liangco's testimony that he was informed about the incident must be upheld.
Unfortunately, the Contract of Security Services does not define the requisite notice. Neither does it specify the manner of reporting the loss, whether it should be written or verbal, or the employee responsible should convey or receive the notice. The contract plainly states that the loss or damage should be reported to Rescue Security within 48 hours from its occurrence as a condition for the payment of the loss of property.
The Court cannot further qualify the requisite or read into it any other meaning not expressed in the contract. Accordingly, as long as Rescue Security is informed in any manner whatsoever about the loss of the property, the requisite notice should be deemed satisfied. In the case at bar, Liangco received the information, not only once but twice, in his capacity as an officer of Rescue Security. The notice to Liangco was notice to Rescue Security.
While it is true that the question of negligence on the part of Rescue Security was never made an issue either before the Court of Appeals or in this petition, nonetheless this Court deems it proper to resolve the same to arrive at a complete determination of this case. After all, it would be far-fetched to expect Rescue Security to raise the matter of negligence as an issue since it was itself the appellee before the Court of Appeals and the trial court ruled that negligence could not be pinned on Rescue Security in the absence of evidence on the aspect.
Anyhow, the issue of negligence is related to the issue of Rescue Security's liability for the loss of the medicines because the absence thereof is one of the exculpating circumstances expressly recognized in Paragraph 627 of the Contract of Security Services. Indeed, this Court has the authority to waive the lack of proper assignment of errors if the unassigned errors closely relate to errors properly pinpointed out or if the unassigned errors refer to matters upon which depends the determination of the questions raised by the errors properly assigned.28 In the instant case, the determination of the issue of whether Rescue Security may be held liable under the contract will depend upon the Court's finding of negligence on the part of Rescue Security's security guards.
guilty of negligence in performing the security services it undertook to provide under the contract which include shielding the DOH premises from robbery and other unlawful acts.
After a painstaking review of the records of the case, the Court finds that petitioner failed to present preponderant evidence showing that the negligence or carelessness of the security guards was the proximate cause of the loss of the medicines. A perusal of their testimonies reveals that the security guards posted at petitioner's premises during the period that the robbery took place had performed their duties in the manner reasonably expected of them under the circumstances. Petitioner failed to present proof to rebut this evidence. It is possible that there were security lapses during the long holidays on the occasion of which the loss was thought to have occurred. However, absent any evidence showing a direct link between the loss and the conduct of the security guards, the Court cannot make Rescue Security answerable for the loss.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 69674 is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
1 Rollo, pp. 8-24. Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices Elvi John S. Asuncion, Chairperson, Fifteenth Division, and Mariano C. Del Castillo.
4 Id. at 1-2; Complaint dated 7 March 2007.
6 Folder of Exhibits; Exhibits "D" and "D-1;" Memorandum of the Criminal Investigation Group to the Regional Officer, 3rd CIG Regional Office regarding the Re-alleged Robbery break at DOH Regional Health Office III, San Nicolas, San Fernando, Pampanga dated 21 February 1997.
7 Folder of Exhibits; Exhibit "K."
12 CA rollo, p. 98.
16 Baricuatro v. Court of Appeals, 382 Phil. 15, 24 (2000).
Witness: Seven in the morning, sir.
Witness: During that time, sir, I recall that there was something that Miss Lourdes Macabulos called.
Witness: After that call, sir, I went to the DOH, Regional Office and I directly went [sic] to Miss Macabulos.
Witness: More or less, I think around 10:00 to 11:00 o'clock, sir.
Witness: Yes, sir. In the morning.
Witness: At first, sir, I asked our Security Guard what happened, and after that I went already [sic] to Miss Macabulos inside the office supply room, sir.
Witness: During that time, sir, when I arrived at the supply room [sic] Miss Macabulos told me that there was something that happened [sic] in the supply room. And I investigated the report, sir, including the doors, the windows and ceilings and I found that there were no traces of forcible entry.
Witness: Mrs. Macabulos told me that there were missing [sic] and she pointed the boxes where they were located.
Witness: She said that the loss [sic] drugs and medicines in those boxes.
18 Bon v. People, 419 SCRA 101, 111.
Witness: He just told me that there were no force entry [sic] and as per Macabulos, they entered the [s]upply room without any damage[;] the ceiling, the windows, the doors and the padlocks.
Witness: I cannot remember, sir.
Witness: No, sir, he just told me there was no force entry [sic] and when he entered the room according to him, he did not see any damage on the windows as well as on the ceiling, how could it be that there was lost [sic].
20 People of the Philippines v. Patanayan, Jr., 434 Phil. 303, 326 (2002).
21 Tecson v. Sandiganbayan, 376 Phil. 191, 202-203 (1999).
23 German Marine Agencies, Inc. v. NLRC, 403 Phil. 572, 588-589 (2001).
28 Republic of the Philippines v. COCOFED, 423 Phil. 735 (2001).
29 Lee v. Court of Appeals, 426 Phil. 290, 304 (2002).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.