SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-16582           November 29, 1961

LORETA LERIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CONRADO ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellee.

Epifanio R. Tupas for plaintiff-appellant.
F. P. Amante for defendant-appellee.

R E S O L U T I O Nchanrobles virtual law library

BARRERA, J.:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental (in Civil Case No. 5257) directly filed in this Court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

As may be gathered from the records, the facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows:chanrobles virtual law library

On March 30, 1958, Loreta Lerio assisted by her husband, Paterno Segura, for herself and on behalf of her minor son, Bonifacio Alvarez, filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental against Conrado Alvarez, for moral damages and support. It was alleged that while plaintiff Loreta, then unmarried, was under the employ of defendant, a married man, the latter had carnal knowledge of her resulting in her pregnancy, and later, giving birth to plaintiff minor Bonifacio Alvarez; that such act of defendant constitutes an "act contrary to morals" contemplated by the new Civil Code and brought her humiliation, mental shock and shame, thus entitling her to moral damages; that as an adulterous child, plaintiff minor is also entitled to receive support from defendant. Thus, Loreta claimed moral damages in the sum of P10,000.00, and a monthly support of P50.00 for the minor Bonifacio Alvarez, from May 14, 1955 until he reaches the age of majority, plus attorney's fees and costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In his answer, defendant denied having carnal intercourse with plaintiff Loreta and contended that during said plaintiff's employment in their household, she was found to be maintaining illicit relations with one Amador Laurico, a male house-help; that such fact caused her dismissal from the service; that he did not know of Loreta's pregnancy nor of her giving birth to plaintiff minor; that he did not authorize anybody to use his surname or put his name in any record as the putative father of Loreta's child. As counterclaim, defendant demanded the sum of P10,000 as moral damages and P2,000.00 as attorney's fees.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

After due hearing wherein documentary as well as testimonial evidence was presented, the court rendered judgment finding that other than Loreta's uncorroborated testimony, no evidence was presented to substantiate the allegations of the complaint. The baptismal certificate (Exh. A), wherein it was made to appear that Conrado Alvarez is the father of the baptized child, Bonifacio Alvarez, was declared incompetent to prove paternity of the child. Consequently, the complaint as well as the counterclaim, was dismissed for lack of sufficient proof, with costs against the plaintiffs. From this decision, plaintiffs filed this appeal on the following assignments of error, to wit:

I. That the trial court erred in not holding that the testimony of the plaintiff-appellant Loreta Lerio, not being impeached, is more credible than the testimony of the biased witness, Amador Laurico.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

II. That the trial court erred in not holding that Amador Laurico, principal witness of the defendant, is biased in favor of the latter, therefore, his testimony should not be given any credence.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

III. That the trial court erred in not awarding moral damages to the plaintiff-appellant Loreta Lerio.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

IV. That the trial court erred in not awarding support the child Bonifacio Alvarez.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

V. That the trial court erred in not awarding attorney's fees to the plaintiffs-appellants.

It is clear therefrom that in contesting the trial court's finding on the alleged insufficiency of evidence, appellants are actually raising questions of fact. The appeal, therefore, properly falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, this case is hereby remanded to the Court of Appeals for adjudication according to law. So ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon and De Leon, JJ., concur.