8/10/2019 Ferrer v. Ericta

1/2

1 |T o r t s a n d D a m a g e s

Ferrer v. Ericta (1978)

Ponente: Antonio, J.

Petitioner: MR. AND MRS. ROMEO FERRER AND ANNETTE FERRERRespondent: HON. VICENTE G. ERICTA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OFFIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, QUEZON CITY, BRANCH XVIII, MR. AND MRS. FRANCIS PFLEIDER AND

DENNIS PFLEIDER, RESPONDENTSUnder what topic: Prescription

Synopsis:

There was a vehicular accident which resulted to the plaintiffs action for damages against the

parents of the minor tortfeasor. The suit was filed more than four years after the incident.

Defendants filed their answer, but the defense of prescription was invoked only when the case was

revived. The court eventually upheld the defense.

Doctrine:

Issue: WON the defense of prescription had been waived by the defendants failure to allege the same intheir answer.

While it is true that, as a rule, prescription can only be considered if the same is invoked in

the answer of the defense, the rule cannot be invoked when the evidence shows that the

action has already been barred by the statute of limitations.

Facts:

Mr. And Mrs. Franis Pfleider were the owners or operators of a Ford pick-up car. At about 5pm of

December 31, 1970, their son, defendant Dennis, who was only 16 at the time, without proper

official authority, drove the ford, without due regard to traffic rules and regulations, and without

taking the necessary precaution to prevent injury to persons or damage to property. The pick upcar was overturned, causing physical injuries to plaintiff Annette Ferrer, who was then a

passenger, which injuries paralyzed her and require medical treatment an confinement at

different hospitals for more than two year.

As a result of the physical injuries sustained by P, she suffered unimaginable physical pain, mental

anguish, and her parents also suffered mental anguish, moral shock, and spent a considerable

sum of money for her treatment.

Complaint was only filed on January 5, 1975

Pretrial (May 12, 1975), only Ferrer and counsel were present. As such, the Pfleiders were

declared in default and the court rendered judgment against them.

Upon filing a motion for reconsideration, respondent Judge, without setting aside the order of

default, issued an order absolving defendants from any liability on the grounds that:

o Complaint states no cause of action because it does not allege that Dennis Pfleider was

living with his parents at the time of the vehicular accident. Considering that under 2180,

the father, and in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, is only responsible for the

damages caused by their minor children who live in their company

8/10/2019 Ferrer v. Ericta

2/2

2 |T o r t s a n d D a m a g e s

o

That the defense of prescription is meritorious, since the complaint was filed more than

4 years after the date of the accident and the action to recover damages based on quasi-

delict prescribes in 4 years

o

Instant petition for mandamus

Issue/s: WON the defense of prescription had been deemed waived by PR s failure to allege the

same in their answer.

Held-Ratio:

No. Defense of prescription (DP) not deemed waived.

Where the answer does not take issue with the complaint as to dates involved in the defendant s

claim of prescription, his failure to specifically plead prescription in the answer does not

constitute a waiver of the defense of prescription.

o Defense of prescription, even if not raised in a motion to dismiss or in the answer, is not

deemed waived unless such defense raises issues of fact appearing upon the preceding

pleading.

It is true that the DP can only be considered if it is invoked as such in the answer of the defendant

and that in this particular instance, no such defense was invoked because the defendants had

been declared in default. But such rule does not obtain when the evidence shows that the cause

of action upon which plaintiffs complaint us based is already barred by the statute of limitations.

In the present case, there is no issue of fact involved in connection with the question of

prescription. Action for damages arising from physical injuries because of a tort must be filed

within four years. The four-year period begins from the day the quasi-delict is committed or the

date of the accident.

Dispositive:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for mandamus is hereby DISMISSED, without pronouncement as to

costs.