7 This was denied by the MTC in an Order 8 dated 13 March 2000 on the ground that it had been filed out of time. First, petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment with the MTC on 25 October 1999.
#Michael iliner series
What then followed was a series of unsuccessful attempts by petitioner to have the lower courts set aside or stay the now-final judgment against it. Again, the MTC reiterated that the Judgment dated 13 January 1998 had long become final and executory since the fatally defective Motion for Reconsideration did not toll the reglementary period for appeal. It was only on 28 September 1999, or eighteen (18) months after the Notice of Appeal was filed, that the MTC acted on the same and ruled that it had been filed beyond the reglementary period. The case was assigned to a new MTC judge, who was then tasked with ruling on the Notice of Appeal. Petitioner responded to the foregoing developments by filing a Notice of Appeal, as well as a motion for the inhibition by the MTC judge which motion was immediately granted. In the same order and upon the same predicates, the MTC also granted the Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution filed by respondent. Accordingly, the MTC declared that its earlier judgment dated 13 January 1998 had become final and executory. The Notice of Hearing therein stated: "Please submit the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration for hearing before the Honorable Court at a schedule and time convenient to this Honorable Court and the parties." 4 The MTC ruled in an Order 5 dated 23 February 1998 that the notice did not conform with the mandatory requirements of Section 5, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and that the motion was thus a mere scrap of paper which did not suspend the period to appeal. Through its new counsel, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On 13 January 1998, the MTC rendered judgment in favor of respondent, awarding him the sum of P82,180.00. The MTC found merit in respondent's contention, and ordered the case be deemed submitted for decision as of 27 October 1997.
![michael iliner michael iliner](https://linerlegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Michael-Youngstown--1024x755.jpg)
Respondent thus immediately moved that petitioner be declared to have waived its right to adduce evidence in its favor and that the case be deemed submitted for judgment. When the case was called for the reception of petitioner's evidence on the previously scheduled date of 27 October 1997, no appearance was made for the bus company. In the meantime, counsel for petitioner filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, but the same was denied by the MTC in an Order dated 15 September 1997 as the motion did not bear any signature of conformity from the petitioner.
![michael iliner michael iliner](https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-1tyihs272l/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/4036/5602/Boker-2076DAM-Liner-Lock-Quince-Wood-Damascus__04018.1500573706.jpg)
In the course of trial, respondent finished presenting his evidence and rested his case.
#Michael iliner driver
After pre-trial, the bus driver was dropped as defendant in the case after summons could not be served on him and respondent agreed to waive his cause of action against said driver.
![michael iliner michael iliner](https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Michael-Liner.jpg)
#Michael iliner trial
Claims for exemplary damages and attorney's fees were also lodged in the complaint, 2 which was filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet. A complaint for sum of money and damages was instituted by respondent against petitioner and the bus driver, Leoncio Bulaong, alleging pecuniary damage to the truck in the amount of P47,180.00, representing lost income for the non-use of the truck as it underwent repairs in the amount of P15,000.00. 1 Nobody died, but both vehicles were damaged from the accident. and an Isuzu Truck used by respondent Michael Malinias. This case finds its origin from a vehicular collision that occurred in La Union on 19 March 1996 between a bus owned by petitioner Victory Liner, Inc. However, the procedural aspect of the case has since taken on a life of its own, transforming what should be a molehill into a mountain built on sediments of compounded errors. The matter began as a simple civil suit for damages arising from an unremarkable traffic accident. Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2007 > May 2007 Decisions >