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.

Leon O. Ty, Gesmundo and Gesmundo and Renato B. Vasquez for petitioners.

Domingo E. de Lara and Associates for respondents.

GANCAYCO, J.:

Before Us is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision De Lima vs. Laguna Tayabas Co. of the Court of
Appeals 1 affirming the decision of the court a quo with modification to include an award of legal interest on the
amounts adjudged in favor of the petitioners from the date of the decision of the Court of Appeals to the time of actual
payment.

FACTS:

On June 3, 1958 a passanger bus of Laguna Tayabas Bus Company and a delivery truck of Seven Up Bottling Co.,
Philippines collided causing the death of Petra Dela Cruz and serious physical injuries to Eladia De Lima and
Nemesio Flores. Three suits were filed against the respondents before the Court of First Instance of Laguna (San
Pablo City)

On December 27, 1963, the court a quo rendered a decision in favour of the plaintiffs specifying the indemnity
afforded to them. However, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on the decision by the court a quo seeking
award of legal interest on the adjudged amount in their favour from the date of the said decision but their motion was
not acted upon by the said court.

All of the plaintiffs desisted from appealing with the hope that the defendant will comply with the indemnity. But
instead, the defendant filed an appeal in contrary to the motion for reconsideration raised by the petitioners to the
Court of Appeals. This appeal was pending for around 30 years.

On December 1971, the petitioners filed a motion before the court of Appeals seeking the grant of legal interest from
the date of the decision of the Court a quo and increasing the civil indemnity for the death of Petra Dela Cruz. The
appelatte court denied the motion on the contention that the petitioners failed to make an appeal on the error on lower
courts ruling for not awarding the legal interest and damages. The Supreme Court after thorough review and analysis
of the case GRANTED the petition of the petitioners with modifications on the amounts previously specified by the
court a quo.

ISSUE:

Whether the Supreme Courts decision through its liberal stance manifested vigilance in favor of the indigent litigants
HOLDING:

YES. Article 24 provides that In all contractual, property and other relations, when one of the parties is at a
disadvantages on the account of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other
handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection. The petitioners were litigating as paupers. 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.Inthe liberal stance of the Supreme Court seeing the case pending for 30 years, it shall an exemption to the
rule that it should not be entertained because of its failure to make an appeal on the lower courts decision. The heirs
though they failed to do such should be afforded with equitable relief by the courts as it must be vigilant for their
protection. The claim for legal interest and increase in indemnity should be entertained in spite of the claimants
failure to appeal the judgement. 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.