Martial law victims appeal Supreme Court ruling on damage suit vs Ver

MANILA, Philippines - Detainees during the martial law era asked the Supreme Court (SC) to reconsider its ruling last month favoring the late Armed Forces chief Fabian Ver and his former subordinates in a case for damages.

In an omnibus motion filed through the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), petitioners Marco Palo, Joseph Olayer, Manuel Guzman, Rolando Salutin and Rodolfo Benosa also called on the high court to elevate their case from the third division to the full court and also set oral arguments on their appeal.

FLAG lawyers led by human rights lawyer Jose Manuel Diokno specifically questioned the finding of the SC that Ver and the other accused in their pending civil case had been denied due process.

“This finding, we respectfully submit, has no basis in fact or in law,” petitioners argued.

The case stemmed from damages the petitioners are seeking for the torture they had undergone in the hands of the military during the martial law era.

The SC’s third division affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) remanding the case to the lower court for further proceedings.

The SC held that Ver and other respondents were deprived of due process when they were declared by the trial court in default based on a defective mode of service – service of notice to file answer by publication, denying the appeal of several alleged subversives who were arrested and detained by the military from the assailed CA ruling.

“The rules of service of pleadings, motions, notices, orders, judgments and other papers were not strictly followed in declaring the respondents in default,” read the ruling penned by Associate Justice Jose Mendoza.

Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Diosdado Peralta, Roberto Abad and Estela Perlas-Bernabe concurred in the ruling.

The SC agreed with the CA that the Quezon City regional trial court committed procedural lapses in declaring the respondents in default and allowing petitioners to present evidence ex-parte or without getting the side of the other party.

In an Aug. 17, 1990 ruling, the Quezon City court ordered Ver and other respondents to each pay P350,000 in damages to the petitioners and also to report their addresses and whereabouts so they would be properly notified of the proceedings.

The SC said it viewed the decision as an “attempt” to serve a notice to file an answer by personal service and/or by mail.

“However, these proper and preferred modes of service were never resorted to,” the high court said.

The SC said a third mode of service – substituted service or delivering a copy to the clerk of court – was likewise not resorted to by the RTC.

“Instead, the regional trial court authorized an unrecognized mode of service under the Rules, which was notice to file answer by publication,” the SC said.

The high court said the RTC should have been more patient and “should not have simply abandoned the preferred modes of service when the petitioners failed to comply with its Aug. 17, 1990 order with the correct addresses.”

But petitioners alleged that the SC erred in this ruling.

“Respondents were government officials when the complaint was filed against them. They were served with summons at their government addresses because their residential addresses were not known to the plaintiffs and could not be duly ascertained. They submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the trial court by voluntarily appearing through counsel and filing a motion to dismiss the complaint.

“Their addresses in the court record were those pertaining to their government posts. But when the Marcos government fell in 1986 and they moved out of their posts, they failed to inform the trial court of their new addresses,” they stressed.

The human rights victims also lamented how their case “languished in the Court of Appeals for 11 years, and in this Court for another eight years, before judgment was finally promulgated on 14 March 2012.”

“This case was groundbreaking when it was decided in 1993... a Philippine court had applied the doctrine of command responsibility to hold the chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines liable for torture. And for the first time ever, a Philippine court had utilized the Civil Code as an instrument for holding public officials accountable for crimes against humanity,” the motion pointed out.

The case stemmed from the damage suit filed by Rogelio Aberca and 18 others on Jan. 25, 1983. Aberca’s group was suspected of being subversives and was arrested and detained by the military.

Aberca’s group won their case at the trial court in February 1993.

Ver was the AFP chief under the Marcos regime and highly regarded as the most trusted military officer of the late strongman.

After Marcos was ousted through the historic People Power Revolution in 1986, Ver went into exile in the United States and died in Thailand in November 1998. His remains were brought back to the Philippines and buried in his hometown of Ilocos Norte.