Raagas vs. Traya

A judgment on the pleadings is improper where the answer tenders a valid issue, including a denial of damages based on lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief, coupled with an affirmative averment that the injury was caused by an unforeseen event or the claimant's own fault. Damages are never deemed admitted by failure to deny and must be proven with actual proof at trial.

The spouses Melquiades Raagas and Adela Laudiano Raagas were the parents of Regino Laudiano Raagas, a three-year-old child. Octavio Traya and his wife owned a truck driven by their employee Bienvenido Canciller, who had been hired in 1946. The dispute arose from a vehicular accident on a public highway in MacArthur, Leyte, resulting in the child's death, for which the parents sought actual, moral, nominal, and corrective damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses.

On April 1, 1960, the spouses Melquiades Raagas and Adela Laudiano Raagas filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Leyte against Octavio Traya, his wife, and Bienvenido Canciller. The complaint alleged that on or about April 9, 1958, while Canciller was "recklessly" driving a truck owned by the defendant-spouses along the public highway in MacArthur, Leyte, the vehicle ran over the plaintiffs' three-year-old son Regino, causing his instantaneous death. The plaintiffs sought actual damages of P10,000, moral, nominal, and corrective damages in an amount to be determined by the court, P1,000 as attorney's fees, P1,000 for litigation expenses, and costs.

On April 22, the defendants filed an answer with a counterclaim for moral and actual damages and attorney's fees. They specifically denied that Canciller was driving recklessly, asserting that the truck was fully loaded, running at a very low speed, and on the right side of the road. According to the defendants, it was the child who rushed from an unseen position and bumped the truck, so that he was hit by the left rear tire and died. They maintained that the accident was entirely attributable to an unforeseen event or to the fault of the child and the negligence of his parents. The defendants further asserted that the defendant-spouses had exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of their driver, whom they hired in 1946 only after a thorough study of his background, and that each time he was allowed to drive, they checked his physical condition and the mechanical fitness of the assigned truck.

On May 4, the plaintiffs moved for judgment on the pleadings, contending that the defendants' answer failed to tender an issue and admitted material allegations of the complaint. The motion was set for hearing on June 18. On the preceding day, the clerk of court received a telegram from defendants' counsel requesting postponement to July 2 on the ground that he was sick with influenza. The lower court denied the request for lack of proper notice to the adverse party and considered the case submitted for decision upon the filing of the plaintiffs' memorandum.

On June 24, the lower court rendered judgment on the pleadings, condemning the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay P10,000 for the death of the child, P2,000 for moral damages, P1,000 actual damages, P1,000 for attorney's fees, and costs. The court reasoned that the answer's denial of reckless driving did not affect the plaintiffs' positive allegation that the truck did not have a current year registration plate for 1958, that this failure had the effect of hypothetically admitting that the truck was operated without proper license when the accident occurred, and that under Article 2185 of the Civil Code, a person driving a motor vehicle is presumed negligent if at the time of the mishap he was violating any traffic regulation. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court because the issues raised are purely of law.

• Judgment on the Pleadings Was Improper: The defendants-appellants maintained, through their answer, that the accident was caused by an unforeseen event or by the fault of the child and his parents, thereby tendering a genuine issue that precluded judgment on the pleadings.
• Denial of Reckless Driving: The defendants-appellants argued that the truck was fully loaded, running at a very low speed, and on the right side of the road, and that the child rushed from an unseen position and bumped the truck.
• Due Diligence in Selection and Supervision: The defendants-appellants asserted that the defendant-spouses exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of their driver, having hired him only after a thorough study of his background and having checked his physical condition and the truck's mechanical fitness each time he was permitted to drive.
• Damages Not Admitted: The defendants-appellants contended, through their answer, that they had no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding damages, the death of the child having been occasioned by an unforeseen event or by the fault of the child or his parents.

• Answer Failed to Tender an Issue: The plaintiffs-appellees argued that the defendants' answer failed to tender an issue and admitted material allegations of the complaint, warranting judgment on the pleadings.
• Admission of Operating Without Proper License: The plaintiffs-appellees relied on the allegation that the truck did not have a current year registration plate for 1958, which the answer did not specifically deny, and that this failure had the effect of hypothetically admitting operation without proper license at the time of the accident.
• Presumption of Negligence: The plaintiffs-appellees invoked Article 2185 of the Civil Code, under which a person driving a motor vehicle is presumed negligent if at the time of the mishap he was violating any traffic regulation.

• Judgment on the Pleadings: Whether the lower court correctly rendered judgment on the pleadings when the defendants' answer denied the plaintiffs' claims as to damages and asserted that the accident was caused by an unforeseen event or the fault of the child and his parents.
• Tender of Issue: Whether the defendants' averment of lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding damages, coupled with the assertion that the death was occasioned by an unforeseen event or the fault of the child or his parents, constituted a valid tender of issue.
• Admissibility of Damages: Whether damages are deemed admitted when the allegations regarding the amount of damages in the complaint are not specifically denied in the answer.

• Judgment on the Pleadings: No. The lower court erred in rendering judgment on the pleadings because the answer tendered valid issues requiring a full trial on the merits.
• Tender of Issue: Yes. The averment that the defendants had no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding damages, coupled with the assertion that the death was occasioned by an unforeseen event or the fault of the child or his parents, had the effect of tendering a valid issue.
• Admissibility of Damages: No. Even if allegations regarding the amount of damages in the complaint are not specifically denied in the answer, such damages are not deemed admitted; actual damages must be proved, and moral damages require satisfactory proof of the factual basis of the damage and its causal relation to the defendant's acts.

• Judgment on the Pleadings: Section 10 of Rule 35 of the old Rules of Court authorized judgment on the pleadings only where an answer fails to tender an issue or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading. The defendants' answer denied reckless driving, asserted that the truck was running at low speed on the right side of the road, and claimed the child rushed from an unseen position. The answer further stated that the defendants had no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding damages and that the death was occasioned by an unforeseen event or the fault of the child or his parents. These averments collectively tendered genuine issues of fact and law that could not be resolved without a full trial. The lower court's reliance on the truck's alleged lack of a current registration plate and the presumption of negligence under Article 2185 of the Civil Code did not eliminate the need to try the issues actually joined by the pleadings.

• Tender of Issue: The specific language used by the defendants — that they had "no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations" as to damages, "the truth of the matter being that the death of Regino Raagas was occasioned by an unforeseen event and/or by the fault of the small boy Regino Raagas or his parents" — constituted a valid tender of issue. This formulation was held sufficient in Philippine National Bank vs. Lacson and Benavides vs. Alabastro. The affirmative averment that the death was caused by an unforeseen event or the child's or parents' fault directly controverted the plaintiffs' claim that the accident resulted from the defendants' reckless driving, presenting a factual dispute that could not be resolved on the pleadings alone.

• Admissibility of Damages: The Court reaffirmed the rule, established in Abubakar Tan vs. Tian Ho and Lim Giok vs. Bataan Cigar and Cigarette Factory, that even if the allegations regarding the amount of damages in the complaint are not specifically denied in the answer, such damages are not deemed admitted. In Tomassi vs. Villa-Abrille, Suntay Tanjangco vs. Jovellanos, and Delfin vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, the Court declared that actual damages must be proved and that a court cannot rely on speculation, conjecture, or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend on actual proof that damage had been suffered and on evidence of the actual amount. In Malonzo vs. Galang, the Court reaffirmed that although an allegation is not necessary for moral damages to be awarded, it is essential that the claimant satisfactorily prove the existence of the factual basis of the damage and its causal relation to the defendant's acts. These principles collectively demonstrated the inescapable need for a full-blown trial on the merits.

• Judgment on the Pleadings — A judgment on the pleadings is proper only where the answer fails to tender an issue or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading. Where the answer raises a genuine issue — such as denying damages for lack of knowledge and asserting an unforeseen event or the claimant's own fault as the cause of injury — judgment on the pleadings is improper and the case must proceed to trial on the merits. The Court applied this doctrine by finding that the defendants' answer, which denied reckless driving and attributed the accident to an unforeseen event or the child's and parents' fault, tendered valid issues precluding judgment on the pleadings.

• Damages Are Not Deemed Admitted by Failure to Deny — Even if the allegations regarding the amount of damages in the complaint are not specifically denied in the answer, such damages are not deemed admitted. Actual damages must be proved with actual proof of the fact and amount of damage suffered; a court cannot rely on speculation, conjecture, or guesswork. Moral damages, though not requiring an allegation in the complaint, must be satisfactorily proven as to their factual basis and causal relation to the defendant's acts. The Court relied on this doctrine to conclude that the plaintiffs' claims for actual, moral, nominal, and corrective damages required evidentiary proof at trial and could not be resolved on the pleadings alone.

• Presumption of Negligence Under Article 2185, Civil Code — Unless there is proof to the contrary, a person driving a motor vehicle is presumed negligent if at the time of the mishap he was violating any traffic regulation. The lower court invoked this presumption based on the alleged absence of a current registration plate, but the Supreme Court found that the presumption did not eliminate the genuine issues tendered by the answer, which required a full trial.

• "Such averment has the effect of tendering a valid issue." — This statement establishes the ratio decidendi: the defendants' denial of damages based on lack of knowledge or information, coupled with the affirmative assertion that the death was caused by an unforeseen event or the claimant's fault, constituted a valid tender of issue precluding judgment on the pleadings.

• "Even if the allegations regarding the amount of damages in the complaint are not specifically denied in the answer, such damages are not deemed admitted." — This formulation articulates the canonical rule that damages require proof regardless of whether they are specifically denied, a principle frequently cited in subsequent procedural jurisprudence.

• "A court cannot rely on 'speculation, conjecture or guesswork' as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend on actual proof that damage had been suffered and on evidence of the actual amount." — This passage defines the evidentiary standard for actual damages, emphasizing that proof of both the fact of damage and its amount is indispensable and cannot be supplied by inference alone.

• "The preceding disquisition points up the inescapable need of a full-blown trial on the merits at which the parties will be afforded every opportunity to present evidence in support of their respective contentions and defenses." — This concluding statement of the reasoning underscores the practical consequence of the Court's ruling: the existence of genuine issues necessitates a complete trial, not disposition on the pleadings.

• Philippine National Bank vs. Lacson, L-9419, May 29, 1957 — Followed. The Court relied on this case to support the proposition that an averment of lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of allegations regarding damages has the effect of tendering a valid issue.
• Benavides vs. Alabastro, L-19762, Dec. 23, 1964 — Followed. Cited alongside Philippine National Bank vs. Lacson for the same proposition regarding the sufficiency of a denial to tender a valid issue.
• Abubakar Tan vs. Tian Ho, L-18820, December 29, 1962 — Followed. The Court relied on this case for the rule that even if allegations regarding the amount of damages are not specifically denied, such damages are not deemed admitted.
• Lim Giok vs. Bataan Cigar and Cigarette Factory, L-15861, April 16, 1960 — Followed. Cited together with Abubakar Tan vs. Tian Ho for the same rule on damages not being deemed admitted.
• Tomassi vs. Villa-Abrille, L-7047, August 21, 1968 — Followed. The Court cited this case for the rule that actual damages must be proved and that a court cannot rely on speculation, conjecture, or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages.
• Suntay Tanjangco vs. Jovellanos, L-12332, June 30, 1960 — Followed. Cited alongside Tomassi vs. Villa-Abrille and Delfin vs. Court of Agrarian Relations for the same proposition on the necessity of proving actual damages.
• Delfin vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, L-23348, March 14, 1967 — Followed. Cited for the rule that actual damages require actual proof of the fact and amount of damage suffered.
• Malonzo vs. Galang, L-13851, July 27, 1960 — Followed. The Court relied on this case to reaffirm that although an allegation is not necessary for moral damages to be awarded, the claimant must satisfactorily prove the factual basis of the damage and its causal relation to the defendant's acts.

• Section 10, Rule 35, Old Rules of Court (now Section 1, Rule 19 of the New Rules of Court) — Authorized judgment on the pleadings where an answer fails to tender an issue or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading. The Court applied this provision by finding that the defendants' answer did tender a valid issue, rendering judgment on the pleadings improper.
• Article 2185, Civil Code — Provides that unless there is proof to the contrary, a person driving a motor vehicle is presumed negligent if at the time of the mishap he was violating any traffic regulation. The lower court invoked this provision based on the alleged absence of a current registration plate, but the Supreme Court found that the presumption did not obviate the need for trial on the genuine issues raised by the answer.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concurred. Concepcion, C.J., was on leave.