G.R. No.

96781 October 1, 1993

EMILIANO MANUEL and SUPERLINES TRANSPORTATION O., IN., petitioners,
vs.
!ONORA"LE OURT O# APPEALS, ERNESTO A. RAMOS $%b$t&t%ted b' Go'ena
(. Ra)o$, Grace, *a+&d, ,obet, Port&a and "an-o, a.. $%rna)ed RAMOS/ and
GO0ENA (ANAROSA1RAMOS, 2or 3er$e.2 and a$ G%ard&an Ad Litem 2or t3e
)&nor$ ,O"ET, "AN,O, *A4I* and GRAE, a.. $%rna)ed RAMOS/ #ERNAN*O
A"E*E, SR., 2or 3&)$e.2 and a$ G%ard&an Ad Litem 2or )&nor #ERNAN*O G.
A"E*E, ,R./ MIGUEL ,ERN( MAGO, a$ G%ard&an Ad Litem 2or )&nor ARLEEN R.
MAGO, and ANALETA ,. (ANAROSA, respondents.
Benito P. Fabie for petitioners.
Constante Banayos for private respondents.
5UIASON, J.:
This is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court from the
decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV o. !!"#$, and its Resolution dated
%anuary #, !&&!, denyin' petitioner(s motion for reconsideration. The decision sub)ect of
the appeal *as an affirmation of the )ud'ement of the Court of +irst ,nstance of
Camarines orte, in Civil Case o. -$.$ and *hose dispositive portion states/
0R12,313 C43,51R15, )ud'ment is hereby rendered / 6!7 findin' the
defendant 1miliano 2anuel ne'li'ent, rec8less and imprudent in the operation of
3uperlines 9us o. 4$:, *hich *as the pro;imate cause of the in)uries suffered
by the plaintiffs and dama'e of the 3cout Car in *hich they *ere ridin'< 6.7
orderin' the said defendant, )ointly and solidarily, *ith the defendant 3uperlines
9us Co., ,nc. to pay plaintiffs the amounts of 04&,&54,#:, as itemi=ed else*here
in this decision and the costs.
,t appearin' that the defendants 3uperlines Transportation Co., ,nc. is insured
*ith the defendant 0erla Compania de 3e'uros, *hich has admitted such
insurance, the latter is hereby ordered to pay the former the amounts so stated
up to the e;tent of its insurance covera'e> 6Rollo, pp. "$-"!7.
The operative facts culled from the decision of the Court of Appeals are as follo*s/
0rivate respondents *ere passen'ers of an ,nternational ?arvester 3cout Car 63cout
Car7 o*ned by respondent Ramos, *hich left 2anila for Camarines orte in the
mornin' of 5ecember .", !&"" *ith respondent +ernando Abcede, 3r. as the driver of
the vehicle.
There *as a dri==le at about 4/!$ 0.2. *hen the 3cout car, *hich *as ne'otiatin' the
=i'=a' road of 9o. 0araiso, 3ta. 1lena, Camarines orte, *as hit on its left side by a
bus. The bus *as o*ned by petitioner 1miliano 2anuel. 5ue to the impact, the 3cout
car *as thro*n bac8*ards a'ainst a protective railin'. @ere it not for the railin', the
3cout car *ould have fallen into a deep ravine. All its ten occupants, *hich included four
children *ere in)ured, seven of the victims sustained serious physical in)uries 6Rollo, p.
.#7.
1miliano 2anuel, the driver of the bus, *as prosecuted for multiple physical in)uries
throu'h rec8less imprudence in the 2unicipal Court of 3ta. 1lena, Camarines orte. As
he could not be found after he ceased reportin' for *or8 a fe* days follo*in' the
incident, the private respondents filed the instant action for dama'es based on quasi-
delict.
After trial, the court a quo rendered )ud'ment a'ainst petitioners and 0erla Compania
de 3e'uros, that covered the insurance of the bus. The court ordered them to pay,
)ointly and severally, the amount of 04&,&54.#: in dama'es to respondents.
4n appeal, the Court of Appeals, affirmed the decision of the trial court.
,n their appeal before us, petitioners contend that it *as +ernando Abcede, %r., driver of
the 3cout car, *ho *as at fault. 9esides, petitioners claim the +ernando Abcede, %r.,
*ho *as only !&-years old at the time of the incident, did not have a driver(s license
6Rollo, p. !$7.
0roof of this, accordin' to petitioners, *as that/
,mmediately after the incident, the bus conductor Cesar 0ica and passen'ers,
includin' 2a;imino %aro, ali'hted from the bus. A *oman passen'er of the ,?
3cout car, 2rs. Ramos, *as heard sayin'/ >,yan na n'a ba an' sinasabi 8o,
napa8ala8as n' loob,> referrin' to youn' man, +ernando Abcede, %r. *ho *as
the driver of the ,? 3cout car 6tsn., p. 4-, ovember !&, !&"&< tsn, p. .--A.
+ebruary ", !&#$7 . . . 6Rollo, p. "57.
Ai8e*ise, petitioner Buestioned the accuracy of the pictures and s8etches submitted by
private respondents as evidence that the 3uperlines bus encroached on the lane of the
3cout car. Accordin' to them, the s8etch made by the police investi'ator sho*in' the
s8id mar8s of the bus, is inadmissible as evidence because it *as prepared the day
after the incident and the alle'ed >tell-tale> s8id mar8s and other details had already
been obliterated by the heavy do*npour *hich lasted for at least an hour after the
accident 6Rollo, p. #"7. Ai8e*ise, they claim that the policeman *ho prepared the s8etch
*as not the police officer assi'ned to conduct the investi'ation 6Rollo, pp. ##-#&7.
@hile it may be accepted that some of the s8id mar8s may have been erased by the
>heavy do*npour> on or about the time of the accident, it remains a possibility that not
all s8id mar8s *ere *ashed a*ay. The stron' presumption of re'ularity in the
performance of official duty 6Rule !-!, 3ec. -6m7, !&#& Rules on 1vidence7 erases, in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, any suspicions that the police investi'ator )ust
invented the s8id mar8s indicated in his report.
Grantin', ho*ever, that the s8id mar8s in the Buestioned s8etch *ere inaccurate,
nonetheless, the findin' of the Court of Appeals that the collision too8 place *ithin the
lane of the 3cout car *as supported by other conclusive evidence. >,ndeed, a trail of
bro8en 'lass *hich *as scattered alon' the car(s side of the road, *hereas the bus lane
*as entirely clear of debris 61;hibit >A-!,> p. -4, Records, pp. 5:-:5< T3, 3ession of
2arch !4, !&"&7> 6Rollo, p. -!7.
+urthermore, the fact that the 3cout car *as found after the impact at rest a'ainst the
'uard railin' sho*s that it must have been hit and thro*n bac8*ards by the bus 6Rollo,
p. !$-7. The physical evidence do not sho* that the 3uperlines 9us *hile travelin' at
hi'h speed, usurped a portion of the lane occupied by the 3cout car before hittin' it on
its left side. 4n collision, the impact due to the force e;erted by a heavier and bi''er
passen'er bus on the smaller and li'hter 3cout car, heavily dama'ed the latter and
thre* it a'ainst the 'uard railin'.
0etitioner(s contention that the 3cout car must have been moved bac8*ards is not only
a speculation but is contrary to human e;perience. There *as no reason to move it
bac8*ards a'ainst the 'uard railin'. ,f the purpose *as to clear the road, all that *as
done *as to leave it *here it *as at the time of the collision, *hich *as *ell inside its
assi'ned lane. 9esides, even petitioners accept the fact that *hen the police arrived at
the scene of the accident, they found no one thereat 6Rollo, p. !-7. This further *ea8ens
the possibility that some persons moved the 3cout car to rest on the 'uard railin'.
The evidence *ith respect to the issue that +ernando Abcede, %r. *ho *as not duly
licensed, *as the one drivin' the 3cout car at the time of the accident, could not simply
e;empt petitioner(s liability because they *ere parties at fault for encroachin' on the
3cout car(s lane 6Rollo, pp. .&--$7.
evertheless, the *itnesses presented by petitioners *ho alle'edly sa* >the youn'er
Abcede pined behind the driver(s *heels,> testified on matters that transpired after the
accident. 5iscreditin' this alle'ation, the Court of Appeals noted that none of the
aforesaid *itnesses actually sa* the youn'er Abcede drivin' the car and that the
youn'er Abcede could have simply been thro*n off his seat to*ard the steerin' *heel
6Rollo, p. .&7.
9e that as it may, this Court has follo*ed a *ell-entrenched principle that the factual
findin's of the Court of Appeals are normally 'iven 'reat *ei'ht, more so *hen the
findin's tally *ith the findin's of the trial court and are supported by the evidence
6+rancisco v. 2a'bitan', !"- 3CRA -#. C!&#&D< e* 4*nersE2ana'ement of T2A
Garments, ,nc. v. Fara'osa, !"$ 3CRA 5:--5:4 C!&#&D7.
The reason for this entrenched principle is 'iven in Chemplex (Phils.) !nc. et al. v.
Ramon C. Pamatian et al. 5" 3CRA 4$# C!&"4D, thus/
This Court is not a trier of facts, and it is beyond its function to ma8e its o*n
findin's of certain vital facts different from those of the trial court, especially on
the basis of the conflictin' claims of the parties and *ithout the evidence bein'
properly before it. +or this Court to ma8e such factual conclusions is entirely
un)ustified G first, because if material facts are controverted, as in this case, and
they are issues bein' liti'ated before the lo*er court, the petition for certiorari
*ould not be in aid of the appellate )urisdiction of this Court< and, secondly,
because it preempts the primary function of the lo*er court, namely, to try the
case on the merits, receive all the evidence to presented by the parties, and only
then come to a definite decision, includin' either the maintenance or the
dischar'e of the preliminary in)unction it has issued.
Appellants, li8e*ise, contested the a*arded dama'es as e;cessive and
unsubstantiated. The trial court(s findin's sho* other*ise, as can be 'leaned from the
follo*in' e;cerpt of this decision/
0laintiffs *ere able to prove their in)uries and submitted evidence to sho*
e;penses for their treatment, hospitali=ation and incidental disbursement 61;hs.
AA to ?? and their submar8in's7, havin' a total amount of 0!.,.$4.#: *hich had
admittedly 6sic7 shouldered by plaintiff 1rnesto Ramos. Considerin' the nature of
the in)uries as sho*n by the respective 2edical Certificates 61;hs. A to % and
their submar8in's7 said amount is very reasonable. ,t *as also sho*n that the
3cout car is a total *rec8, the value of *hich *as estimated to be 0.$,$$$.$$
*hich may be the same amount to put 6sic7 into a runnin' condition. @e
consider, li8e*ise said amount reasonable ta8in' into account its brand
6,nternational ?arvester 3cout car7. The above mentioned dama'es are
considered actual or compensatory 60ar. ! Art. .!&" in relation to Art. .!&&, e*
Civil Code7. 1vidence *as also adduced sho*in' that as a result of the incident
and the resultant in)uries there had been an impairment on the earnin' capacity
of some of the plaintiffs 6+ernando Abcede, 3r., Anacleta Fanarosa, 1rnesto
Ramos and Goyena Ramos7 *hich are recoverable pursuant to Article ..$5 of
the e* Civil Code. Considerin' the nature of their in)uries one month each loss
of income seem reasonable. Attorney(s fees and e;penses of liti'ation is also
proper. 3ince the act complained of falls under the ae'is of quasi-delict 6culpa
aquilina7, moral dama'es is li8e*ise available to plaintiffs pursuant to
Article ..!& also of the e* Civil Code 6Rollo, pp. !!--!!47.
,n addition, moral dama'es may be recovered if they are the pro;imate results of
defendant(s *ron'ful acts or omission as in this case 69anson vs. CA, !"5 3CRA .&"
C!&#&D7.
@?1R1+4R1, the petition is 51,15 and the 5ecision of the Court of Appeals is
A++,R215, *ith costs a'ainst petitioners.
34 4R51R15.
G.R. No. 169796 *ece)ber 61, 1999
,ARO MAR7ETING ORPORATION, LEONAR*O 7ONG, ,OSE TIOPE and ELISA
PANELO, petitioners,
vs.
!ONORA"LE OURT O# APPEALS, ONRA*O . AGUILAR and RISEL*A R.
AGUILAR, respondents.
*A4I*E, ,R., J.:
,n this petition for revie* on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioners
see8 the reversal of the !" %une !&&: decision
1
of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. o. CV
-"&-" and the resolution
6
denyin' their motion for reconsideration. The assailed decision set aside the
!5 %anuary !&&. )ud'ment of the Re'ional Trial Court 6RTC7, 2a8ati City, 9ranch :$ in Civil Case o.
"!!& and ordered petitioners to pay dama'es and attorney(s fees to private respondents Conrado and
Criselda 6CR,31A5A7 A'uilar.
0etitioner %arco 2ar8etin' Corporation is the o*ner of 3yvel(s 5epartment 3tore, 2a8ati City. 0etitioners
Aeonardo Hon', %ose Tiope and 1lisa 0anelo are the store(s branch mana'er, operations mana'er, and
supervisor, respectively. 0rivate respondents are spouses and the parents of Fhieneth A'uilar
6F?,11T?7.
,n the afternoon of & 2ay !&#-, CR,31A5A and F?,11T? *ere at the .nd floor of 3yvel(s 5epartment
3tore, 2a8ati City. CR,31A5A *as si'nin' her credit card slip at the payment and verification counter
*hen she felt a sudden 'ust of *ind and heard a loud thud. 3he loo8ed behind her. 3he then beheld her
dau'hter F?,11T? on the floor, her youn' body pinned by the bul8 of the store(s 'ift-*rappin'
counterEstructure. F?,11T? *as cryin' and screamin' for help. Althou'h shoc8ed, CR,31A5A *as
Buic8 to as8 the assistance of the people around in liftin' the counter and retrievin' F?,11T? from the
floor.
3
F?,11T? *as Buic8ly rushed to the 2a8ati 2edical Center *here she *as operated on. The ne;t day
F?,11T? lost her speech and thereafter communicated *ith CR,31A5A by *ritin' on a ma'ic slate.
The in)uries she sustained too8 their toil on her youn' body. 3he died fourteen 6!47 days after the
accident or on .. 2ay !&#-, on the hospital bed. 3he *as si; years old.
8
The cause of her death *as attributed to the in)uries she sustained. The provisional medical certificate
9
issued by F?,11T?(s attendin' doctor described the e;tent of her in)uries/
5ia'noses/
!. 3hoc8, severe, sec. to intra-abdominal in)uries due to blunt in)ury
.. ?emorrha'e, massive, intraperitoneal sec. to laceration, 6A7 lobe liver
-. Rupture, stomach, anterior I posterior *alls
4. Complete transection, 4th position, duodenum
5. ?ematoma, e;tensive, retroperitoneal
:. Contusion, lun's, severe
CR,T,CAA
After the burial of their dau'hter, private respondents demanded upon petitioners the reimbursement of
the hospitali=ation, medical bills and *a8e and funeral e;penses
6
*hich they had incurred. 0etitioners
refused to pay. ConseBuently, private respondents filed a complaint for dama'es, doc8eted as Civil Case
o. "!!& *herein they sou'ht the payment of 0!5",5...#: for actual dama'es, 0-$$,$$$ for moral
dama'es, 0.$,$$$ for attorney(s fees and an unspecified amount for loss of income and e;emplary
dama'es.
,n their ans*er *ith counterclaim, petitioners denied any liability for the in)uries and conseBuent death of
F?,11T?. They claimed that CR,31A5A *as ne'li'ent in e;ercisin' care and dili'ence over her
dau'hter by allo*in' her to freely roam around in a store filled *ith 'lass*are and appliances. F?,11T?
too, *as 'uilty of contributory ne'li'ence since she climbed the counter, tri''erin' its eventual collapse
on her. 0etitioners also emphasi=ed that the counter *as made of sturdy *ood *ith a stron' support< it
never fell nor collapsed for the past fifteen years since its construction.
Additionally, petitioner %arco 2ar8etin' Corporation maintained that it observed the dili'ence of a 'ood
father of a family in the selection, supervision and control of its employees. The other petitioners li8e*ise
raised due care and dili'ence in the performance of their duties and countered that the complaint *as
malicious for *hich they suffered besmirched reputation and mental an'uish. They sou'ht the dismissal
of the complaint and an a*ard of moral and e;emplary dama'es and attorney(s fees in their favor.
,n its decision
7
the trial court dismissed the complaint and counterclaim after findin' that the
preponderance of the evidence favored petitioners. ,t ruled that the pro;imate cause of the fall of the
counter on F?,11T? *as her act of clin'in' to it. ,t believed petitioners( *itnesses *ho testified that
F?,11T? clun' to the counter, after*hich the structure and the 'irl fell *ith the structure fallin' on top of
her, pinnin' her stomach. ,n contrast, none of private respondents( *itnesses testified on ho* the counter
fell. The trial court also held that CR,31A5A(s ne'li'ence contributed to F?,11T?(s accident.
,n absolvin' petitioners from any liability, the trial court reasoned that the counter *as situated at the end
or corner of the .nd floor as a precautionary measure hence, it could not be considered as an attractive
nuisance.
8
The counter *as hi'her than F?,11T?. ,t has been in e;istence for fifteen years. ,ts
structure *as safe and *ell-balanced. F?,11T?, therefore, had no business climbin' on and clin'in' to
it.
0rivate respondents appealed the decision, attributin' as errors of the trial court its findin's that/ 6!7 the
pro;imate cause of the fall of the counter *as F?,11T?(s misbehavior< 6.7 CR,31A5A *as ne'li'ent in
her care of F?,11T?< 6-7 petitioners *ere not ne'li'ent in the maintenance of the counter< and 647
petitioners *ere not liable for the death of F?,11T?.
+urther, private respondents asserted that F?,11T? should be entitled to the conclusive presumption
that a child belo* nine 6&7 years is incapable of contributory ne'li'ence. And even if F?,11T?, at si; 6:7
years old, *as already capable of contributory ne'li'ence, still it *as physically impossible for her to have
propped herself on the counter. 3he had a small frame 6four feet hi'h and seventy pounds7 and the
counter *as much hi'her and heavier than she *as. Also, the testimony of one of the store(s former
employees, Gerardo Gon=ales, *ho accompanied F?,11T? *hen she *as brou'ht to the emer'ency
room of the 2a8ati 2edical Center belied petitioners( theory that F?,11T? climbed the counter.
Gon=ales claimed that *hen F?,11T? *as as8ed by the doctor *hat she did, F?,11T? replied,
>CDothin', , did not come near the counter and the counter )ust fell on me.>
9
Accordin'ly, Gon=ales(
testimony on F?,11T?(s spontaneous declaration should not only be considered as part of res "estae
but also accorded credit.
2oreover, ne'li'ence could not be imputed to CR,31A5A for it *as reasonable for her to have let 'o of
F?,11T? at the precise moment that she *as si'nin' the credit card slip.
+inally, private respondents vi'orously maintained that the pro;imate cause of F?,11T?(s death, *as
petitioners( ne'li'ence in failin' to institute measures to have the counter permanently nailed.
4n the other hand, petitioners ar'ued that private respondents raised purely factual issues *hich could
no lon'er be disturbed. They e;plained that F?,11T?(s death *hile unfortunate and tra'ic, *as an
accident for *hich neither CR,31A5A nor even F?,11T? could entirely be held faultless and blameless.
+urther, petitioners adverted to the trial court(s re)ection of Gon=ales( testimony as un*orthy of credence.
As to private respondent(s claim that the counter should have been nailed to the 'round, petitioners
)ustified that it *as not necessary. The counter had been in e;istence for several years *ithout any prior
accident and *as deliberately placed at a corner to avoid such accidents. Truth to tell, they acted *ithout
fault or ne'li'ence for they had e;ercised due dili'ence on the matter. ,n fact, the criminal case
1:
for
homicide throu'h simple ne'li'ence filed by private respondents a'ainst the individual petitioners *as
dismissed< a verdict of acBuittal *as rendered in their favor.
The Court of Appeals, ho*ever, decided in favor of private respondents and reversed the appealed
)ud'ment. ,t found that petitioners *ere ne'li'ent in maintainin' a structurally dan'erous counter. The
counter *as shaped li8e an inverted >A>
11
*ith a top *ider than the base. ,t *as top heavy and the *ei'ht
of the upper portion *as neither evenly distributed nor supported by its narro* base. Thus, the counter
*as defective, unstable and dan'erous< a do*n*ard pressure on the overhan'in' portion or a push from
the front could cause the counter to fall. T*o former employees of petitioners had already previously
brou'ht to the attention of the mana'ement the dan'er the counter could cause. 9ut the latter i'nored
their concern. The Court of Appeals faulted the petitioners for this omission, and concluded that the
incident that befell F?,11T? could have been avoided had petitioners repaired the defective counter. ,t
*as inconseBuential that the counter had been in use for some time *ithout a prior incident.
The Court of Appeals declared that F?,11T?, *ho *as belo* seven 6"7 years old at the time of the
incident, *as absolutely incapable of ne'li'ence or other tort. ,t reasoned that since a child under nine 6&7
years could not be held liable even for an intentional *ron', then the si;-year old F?,11T? could not be
made to account for a mere mischief or rec8less act. ,t also absolved CR,31A5A of any ne'li'ence,
findin' nothin' *ron' or out of the ordinary in momentarily allo*in' F?,11T? to *al8 *hile she si'ned
the document at the nearby counter.
The Court of Appeals also re)ected the testimonies of the *itnesses of petitioners. ,t found them biased
and pre)udiced. ,t instead 'ave credit to the testimony of disinterested *itness Gon=ales. The Court of
Appeals then a*arded 0&&,4.$.#: as actual dama'es, the amount representin' the hospitali=ation
e;penses incurred by private respondents as evidenced by the hospital(s statement of account.
16
,t
denied an a*ard for funeral e;penses for lac8 of proof to substantiate the same. ,nstead, a compensatory
dama'e of 05$,$$$ *as a*arded for the death of F?,11T?.
@e Buote the dispositive portion of the assailed decision,
13
thus/
@?1R1+4R1, premises considered, the )ud'ment of the lo*er court is 31T A3,51 and another
one is entered a'ainst CpetitionersD, orderin' them to pay )ointly and severally unto Cprivate
respondentsD the follo*in'/
!. 05$,$$$.$$ by *ay of compensatory dama'es for the death of Fhieneth
A'uilar, *ith le'al interest 6:J p.a.7 from ." April !&#4<
.. 0&&,4.$.#: as reimbursement for hospitali=ation e;penses incurred< *ith le'al
interest 6:J p.a.7 from ." April !&#4<
-. 0!$$,$$$.$$ as moral and e;emplary dama'es<
4. 0.$,$$$.$$ in the concept of attorney(s fees< and
5. Costs.
0rivate respondents sou'ht a reconsideration of the decision but the same *as denied in the Court of
Appeals( resolution
18
of !: %uly !&&".
0etitioners no* see8 the reversal of the Court of Appeals( decision and the reinstatement of the )ud'ment
of the trial court. 0etitioners primarily ar'ue that the Court of Appeals erred in disre'ardin' the factual
findin's and conclusions of the trial court. They stress that since the action *as based on tort, any findin'
of ne'li'ence on the part of the private respondents *ould necessarily ne'ate their claim for dama'es,
*here said ne'li'ence *as the pro;imate cause of the in)ury sustained. The in)ury in the instant case *as
the death of F?,11T?. The pro;imate cause *as F?,11T?(s act of clin'in' to the counter. This act in
turn caused the counter to fall on her. This and CR,31A5A(s contributory ne'li'ence, throu'h her failure
to provide the proper care and attention to her child *hile inside the store, nullified private respondents(
claim for dama'es. ,t is also for these reasons that parents are made accountable for the dama'e or
in)ury inflicted on others by their minor children. Knder these circumstances, petitioners could not be held
responsible for the accident that befell F?,11T?.
0etitioners also assail the credibility of Gon=ales *ho *as already separated from 3yvel(s at the time he
testified< hence, his testimony mi'ht have been tarnished by ill-feelin's a'ainst them.
+or their part, private respondents principally reiterated their ar'uments that neither F?,11T? nor
CR,31A5A *as ne'li'ent at any time *hile inside the store< the findin's and conclusions of the Court of
Appeals are substantiated by the evidence on record< the testimony of Gon=ales, *ho heard F?,11T?
comment on the incident *hile she *as in the hospital(s emer'ency room should receive credence< and
finally, F?,11T?(s part of the res "estae declaration >that she did nothin' to cause the heavy structure
to fall on her> should be considered as the correct version of the 'ruesome events.
@e deny the petition.
The t*o issues to be resolved are/ 6!7 *hether the death of F?,11T? *as accidental or attributable to
ne'li'ence< and 6.7 in case of a findin' of ne'li'ence, *hether the same *as attributable to private
respondents for maintainin' a defective counter or to CR,31A5A and F?,11T? for failin' to e;ercise
due and reasonable care *hile inside the store premises.
An accident pertains to an unforeseen event in *hich no fault or ne'li'ence attaches to the defendant.
19
,t is >a fortuitous circumstance, event or happenin'< an event happenin' *ithout any human a'ency, or if
happenin' *holly or partly throu'h human a'ency, an event *hich under the circumstances is unusual or
une;pected by the person to *hom it happens.>
16
4n the other hand, ne'li'ence is the omission to do somethin' *hich a reasonable man, 'uided by those
considerations *hich ordinarily re'ulate the conduct of human affairs, *ould do, or the doin' of somethin'
*hich a prudent and reasonable man *ould not do.
17
e'li'ence is >the failure to observe, for the
protection of the interest of another person, that de'ree of care, precaution and vi'ilance *hich the
circumstances )ustly demand, *hereby such other person suffers in)ury.>
18
Accident and ne'li'ence are intrinsically contradictory< one cannot e;ist *ith the other. Accident occurs
*hen the person concerned is e;ercisin' ordinary care, *hich is not caused by fault of any person and
*hich could not have been prevented by any means su''ested by common prudence.
19
The test in determinin' the e;istence of ne'li'ence is enunciated in the landmar8 case of Plicart v. #mith,
6:
thus/ 5id the defendant in doin' the alle'ed ne'li'ent act use that reasonable care and caution *hich
an ordinarily prudent person *ould have used in the same situationL ,f not, then he is 'uilty of ne'li'ence.
61
@e rule that the tra'edy *hich befell F?,11T? *as no accident and that F?,11T?(s death could only
be attributed to ne'li'ence.
@e Buote the testimony of Gerardo Gon=ales *ho *as at the scene of the incident and accompanied
CR,31A5A and F?,11T? to the hospital/
M @hile at the 2a8ati 2edical Center, did you hear or notice anythin' *hile the child *as
bein' treatedL
A At the emer'ency room *e *ere all surroundin' the child. And *hen the doctor as8ed
the child >*hat did you do,> the child said >nothin', , did not come near the counter and
the counter )ust fell on me.>
M 6C4KRT T4 ATTN. 91ATRA7
Nou *ant the *ords in Ta'alo' to be translatedL
ATTN. 91ATRA
Nes, your ?onor.
C4KRT
Granted. ,ntercalate >*ala po, hindi po a8o lumapit doon. 9asta buma'sa8.> 66
This testimony of Gon=ales pertainin' to F?,11T?(s statement formed 6and should be admitted as7 part of the res
"estae under 3ection 4., Rule !-$ of the Rules of Court, thus/
0art of res "estae. 3tatements made by a person *hile a startlin' occurrence is ta8in' place or immediately
prior or subseBuent thereto *ith respect to the circumstances thereof, may be 'iven in evidence as part of
the res "estae. 3o, also, statements accompanyin' an eBuivocal act material to the issue, and 'ivin' it a
le'al si'nificance, may be received as part of the res "estae.
,t is a;iomatic that matters relatin' to declarations of pain or sufferin' and statements made to a physician are
'enerally considered declarations and admissions.
63
All that is reBuired for their admissibility as part of the res
"estae is that they be made or uttered under the influence of a startlin' event before the declarant had
the time to thin8 and concoct a falsehood as *itnessed by the person *ho testified in court. Knder the
circumstances thus described, it is unthin8able for F?,11T?, a child of such tender a'e and in e;treme
pain, to have lied to a doctor *hom she trusted *ith her life. @e therefore accord credence to Gon=ales(
testimony on the matter, i.e., F?,11T? performed no act that facilitated her tra'ic death. 3adly,
petitioners did, throu'h their ne'li'ence or omission to secure or ma8e stable the counter(s base.
Gon=ales( earlier testimony on petitioners( insistence to 8eep and maintain the structurally unstable 'ift-
*rappin' counter proved their ne'li'ence, thus/
M @hen you assumed the position as 'ift *rapper at the second floor, *ill you please
describe the 'ift *rappin' counter, *ere you able to e;amineL
A 9ecause every mornin' before , start *or8in' , used to clean that counter and since not
nailed and it *as only standin' on the floor, it *as sha8y.
;;; ;;; ;;;
M @ill you please describe the counter at 5/$$ o(cloc8 CsicD in the afternoon on CsicD 2ay &
!&#-L
A At that hour on 2ay &, !&#-, that counter *as standin' beside the verification counter.
And since the top of it *as heavy and considerin' that it *as not nailed, it can collapse at
anytime, since the top is heavy.
;;; ;;; ;;;
M And *hat did you doL
A , informed 2r. 2aat about that counter *hich is CsicD sha8y and since 2r. 2aat is fond
of puttin' display decorations on tables, he even told me that , *ould put some
decorations. 9ut since , told him that it not CsicD nailed and it is sha8y he told me >better
inform also the company about it.> And since the company did not do anythin' about the
counter, so , also did not do anythin' about the counter.
68
C1mphasis suppliedD
Ramon Guevarra, another former employee, corroborated the testimony of Gon=ales, thus/
M @ill you please described CsicD to the honorable Court the counter *here you *ere
assi'ned in %anuary !&#-L
;;; ;;; ;;;
A That counter assi'ned to me *as *hen my supervisor ordered me to carry that counter
to another place. , told him that the counter needs nailin' and it has to be nailed because
it mi'ht cause in)ury or accident to another since it *as sha8y.
M @hen that 'ift *rappin' counter *as transferred at the second floor on +ebruary !.,
!&#-, *ill you please describe that to the honorable CourtL
A , told her that the counter *rapper CsicD is really in 'ood CsicD condition< it *as sha8y. ,
told her that *e had to nail it.
M @hen you said she, to *hom are you referrin' to CsicDL
A , am referrin' to 2s. 0anelo, sir.
M And *hat *as the ans*er of 2s. 0anelo *hen you told her that the counter *as
sha8yL
A 3he told me >@hy do you have to teach me. Nou are only my subordinate and you are
to teach meL> And she even 'ot an'ry at me *hen , told her that.
;;; ;;; ;;;
M +rom +ebruary !., !&#- up to 2ay &, !&#-, *hat if any, did 2s. 0anelo or any
employee of the mana'ement do to that 6sic7
;;; ;;; ;;;
@itness/
one, sir. They never nailed the counter. $hey only nailed the counter after the accident
happened.
69
C1mphasis suppliedD
@ithout doubt, petitioner 0anelo and another store supervisor *ere personally informed of the dan'er
posed by the unstable counter. Net, neither initiated any concrete action to remedy the situation nor
ensure the safety of the store(s employees and patrons as a reasonable and ordinary prudent man *ould
have done. Thus, as confronted by the situation petitioners miserably failed to dischar'e the due dili'ence
reBuired of a 'ood father of a family.
4n the issue of the credibility of Gon=ales and Guevarra, petitioners failed to establish that the former(s
testimonies *ere biased and tainted *ith partiality. Therefore, the alle'ation that Gon=ales and
Guevarra(s testimonies *ere blemished by >ill feelin's> a'ainst petitioners G since they 6Gon=ales and
Guevarra7 *ere already separated from the company at the time their testimonies *ere offered in court G
*as but mere speculation and deserved scant consideration.
,t is settled that *hen the issue concerns the credibility of *itnesses, the appellate courts *ill not as a
'eneral rule disturb the findin's of the trial court, *hich is in a better position to determine the same. The
trial court has the distinct advanta'e of actually hearin' the testimony of and observin' the deportment of
the *itnesses.
66
?o*ever, the rule admits of e;ceptions such as *hen its evaluation *as reached
arbitrarily or it overloo8ed or failed to appreciate some facts or circumstances of *ei'ht and substance
*hich could affect the result of the case.
67
,n the instant case, petitioners failed to brin' their claim *ithin
the e;ception.
Anent the ne'li'ence imputed to F?,11T?, *e apply the conclusive presumption that favors children
belo* nine 6&7 years old in that they are incapable of contributory ne'li'ence. ,n his boo8,
68
former %ud'e
Ce=ar 3. 3an'co stated/
,n our )urisdiction, a person under nine years of a'e is conclusively presumed to have acted
*ithout discernment, and is, on that account, e;empt from criminal liability. The same
presumption and a li8e e;emption from criminal liability obtains in a case of a person over nine
and under fifteen years of a'e, unless it is sho*n that he has acted *ith discernment. 3ince
ne'li'ence may be a felony and a quasi-delict and reBuired discernment as a condition of liability,
either criminal or civil, a child under nine years of a'e is, by analo'y, conclusively presumed to be
incapable of ne'li'ence< and that the presumption of lac8 of discernment or incapacity for
ne'li'ence in the case of a child over nine but under fifteen years of a'e is a rebuttable one,
under our la*. The rule, therefore, is that a child under nine years of a'e must be conclusively
presumed incapable of contributory ne'li'ence as a matter of la*. C1mphasis suppliedD
1ven if *e attribute contributory ne'li'ence to F?,11T? and assume that she climbed over the counter,
no in)ury should have occurred if *e accept petitioners( theory that the counter *as stable and sturdy. +or
if that *as the truth, a frail si;-year old could not have caused the counter to collapse. The physical
analysis of the counter by both the trial court and Court of Appeals and a scrutiny of the evidence
69
on
record reveal other*ise, i.e., it *as not durable after all. 3haped li8e an inverted >A,> the counter *as
heavy, hu'e, and its top laden *ith formica. ,t protruded to*ards the customer *aitin' area and its base
*as not secured.
3:
CR,31A5A too, should be absolved from any contributory ne'li'ence. ,nitially, F?,11T? held on to
CR,31A5A(s *aist, later to the latter(s hand.
31
CR,31A5A momentarily released the child(s hand from her
clutch *hen she si'ned her credit card slip. At this precise moment, it *as reasonable and usual for
CR,31A5A to let 'o of her child. +urther, at the time F?,11T? *as pinned do*n by the counter, she
*as )ust a foot a*ay from her mother< and the 'ift-*rappin' counter *as )ust four meters a*ay from
CR,31A5A.
36
The time and distance *ere both si'nificant. F?,11T? *as near her mother and did not
loiter as petitioners *ould *ant to impress upon us. 3he even admitted to the doctor *ho treated her at
the hospital that she did not do anythin'< the counter )ust fell on her.
@?1R1+4R1, in vie* of all the fore'oin', the instant petition is 51,15 and the challen'ed decision of
the Court of Appeals of !" %une !&&: in C.A. G.R. o. CV -"&-" is hereby A++,R215.
Costs a'ainst petitioners.
34 4R51R15.
Puno %apunan Pardo and &nares-#antia"o ''. concur.
G.R. No. 8988: #ebr%ar' 6, 1991
EMMA A*RIANO "USTAMANTE, &n 3er o;n be3a.2 a$ G%ard&an1Ad1L&te) o2
)&nor$< ROSSEL, GLORIA, 0OLAN*A, ERI SON and E*ERI, a.. $%rna)ed
"USTAMANTE, S=o%$e$ SAL4A*OR ,OSON and PATRIA "ONE1,OSON,
S=o%$e$ ,OSE RAMOS and ENRI5UETA E"U1RAMOS, S=o%$e$ NARISO1
!IMA0A and A*ORAION MAR5UE(1!IMA0A, and S=o%$e$ ,OSE "ERSAMINA
and MA. OMMEMORAION PEREA1"USTAMANTE, petitioners,
vs.
T!E !ONORA"LE OURT O# APPEALS, #E*ERIO *EL PILAR AN* E*IL"ERTO
MONTESIANO, respondents.
(olorfino and (omin"ue) *a+ ,ffices for petitioners.
'.C. Baldo) - .ssociates for private respondents.
ME*IAL*EA, J.:p
This is a petition for revie* on certiorari see8in' the reversal of the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals dated
+ebruary !5, !&#& *hich reversed and set aside the decision of the Re'ional Trial Court of Cavite, 9ranch OV
orderin' the defendants to pay )ointly and severally the plaintiffs indemnity for death and dama'es< and in further
dismissin' the complaint insofar as defendants-appellants +ederico del 0ilar and 1dilberto 2ontesiano are
concerned< and its resolution dated Au'ust !", !&#& denyin' the motion for reconsideration for lac8 of merit.
The facts 'ivin' rise to the controversy at bar are recounted by the trial court as follo*s/
At about :/-$ in the mornin' of April .$, !&#-, a collision occurred bet*een a 'ravel and sand truc8, *ith
0late o. 5A0 "!", and a 2a=da passen'er bus *ith 2otor o. N..-! and 0late o. 5VT .5& alon' the
national road at Calibuyo, Tan=a, Cavite. The front left side portion 6barandilla7 of the body of the truc8
sides*iped the left side *all of the passen'er bus, rippin' off the said *all from the driver(s seat to the last
rear seat.
5ue to the impact, several passen'ers of the bus *ere thro*n out and died as a result of the in)uries they
sustained, Amon' those 8illed *ere the follo*in'/
!. Ro'elio 9ustamante, 4$, husband of plaintiff 1mma Adriano 9ustamante and father of plaintiffs Rossel,
Gloria, Nolanda, 1ricson, and 1deric, all surnamed 9ustamante<
.. 2aria Cora=on %ocson, !:, dau'hter of plaintiffs spouses 3alvador and 0atria %ocson<
-. %olet C. Ramos, !:, dau'hter of plaintiffs spouses %ose and 1nriBueta Ramos<
4. 1nrico ?imaya, !#, son of plaintiffs spouses arciso and Adoracion ?imaya< and
5. oel 9ersamina, !", son of plaintiffs spouses %ose and 2a. Commemoracion 9ersamina. 6Rollo, p. 4#7
5urin' the incident, the car'o truc8 *as driven by defendant 2ontesiano and o*ned by defendant 5el 0ilar< *hile the
passen'er bus *as driven by defendant 3usulin. The vehicle *as re'istered in the name of defendant ovelo but
*as o*ned andEor operated as a passen'er bus )ointly by defendants 2a'tibay and 3errado, under a franchise, *ith
a line from aic, Cavite, to 9aclaran, 0aranaBue, 2etro 2anila, and vice versa, *hich ovelo sold to 2a'tibay on
ovember #, !&#!, and *hich the latter transferred to 3errado 6Cerrado7 on %anuary !#, !&#-.
,mmediately before the collision, the car'o truc8 and the passen'er bus *ere approachin' each other, comin' from
the opposite directions of the hi'h*ay. @hile the truc8 *as still about -$ meters a*ay, 3usulin, the bus driver, sa*
the front *heels of the vehicle *i''lin'. ?e also observed that the truc8 *as headin' to*ards his lane. ot mindin'
this circumstance due to his belief that the driver of the truc8 *as merely )o8in', 3usulin shifted from fourth to third
'ear in order to 'ive more po*er and speed to the bus, *hich *as ascendin' the inclined part of the road, in order to
overta8e or pass a Hubota hand tractor bein' pushed by a person alon' the shoulder of the hi'h*ay. @hile the bus
*as in the process of overta8in' or passin' the hand tractor and the truc8 *as approachin' the bus, the t*o vehicles
sides*iped each other at each other(s left side. After the impact, the truc8 s8idded to*ards the other side of the road
and landed on a nearby residential lot, hittin' a coconut tree and fellin' it.> 6Rollo, pp. 4#-5$7
After a careful perusal of the circumstances of the case, the trial court reached the conclusion >that the ne'li'ent acts
of both drivers contributed to or combined *ith each other in directly causin' the accident *hich led to the death of
the aforementioned persons. ,t could not be determined from the evidence that it *as only the ne'li'ent act of one of
them *hich *as the pro;imate cause of the collision. ,n vie* of this, the liability of the t*o drivers for their ne'li'ence
must be solidary. 6Rollo, pp. 5$-5!7 Accordin'ly, the trial court rendered a decision on 2arch ", !&#:, the dispositive
portion is hereunder Buoted as follo*s/
@?1R1+4R1, defendants Valeriano 2a'tibay, 3implicio 3errado, Ricardo 3usulin, 1fren ovelo, +ederico
del 0ilar and 1dilberto 2ontesiano are hereby ordered to pay )ointly and severally to the plaintiffs, as follo*s/
!. To plaintiffs 1mma Adriano 9ustamante and her minor children, the sum of 0-$,$$$.$$ as indemnity for
the death of Ro'elio 9ustamante< K.3. P!.",:#$.$$ as indemnity for the loss of the earnin' capacity of the
said deceased, at its prevailin' rate in pesos at the time this decision shall have become final and e;ecutory<
0!$,$$$.$$ as moral dama'es< and 05,$$$.$$ as e;emplary dama'es<
.. To plaintiffs 3alvador and 0atria %ocson, the sum of 0-$,$$$.$$ as indemnity for the death of their
dau'hter, 2aria Cora=on %ocson< 0!$,$$$.$$ as moral dama'es< and 05,$$$.$$ as e;emplary dama'es<
-. To plaintiffs %ose and 1nriBueta Ramos, the sum of 0-$,$$$.$$ as indemnity for the death of their
dau'hter, %olet Ramos< 0!$,$$$.$$ as moral dama'es< and 05,$$$.$$ as e;emplary dama'es< and
4. To plaintiffs arciso and Adoracion ?imaya, the amount of 0-$,$$$.$$ as indemnity for the death of their
son, 1nrico ?imaya, 0!$,$$$.$$ as moral dama'es< and 05,$$$.$$ as e;emplary dama'es< and
5. To plaintiffs %ose and 2a. Commemoracion 9ersamina, the sum of 0-$,$$$.$$ as indemnity for the death
of their son, oel 9ersamina, 0!$,$$$.$$ as moral dama'es and 05,$$$.$$ as e;emplary dama'es.
The defendants are also reBuired to pay the plaintiffs the sum of 0!$,$$$.$$ as attorney(s fees and to pay
the costs of the suit.
The cross-claim of defendant ovelo is hereby allo*ed, and defendants 2a'tibay and 3errado, the actual
o*ners andEor operators of the passen'er bus concerned, are hereby ordered to indemnify ovelo in such
amount as he may be reBuired to pay as dama'es to the plaintiffs.
The cross-claims and counter-claims of the other defendants are hereby dismissed for lac8 of merit.
34 4R51R15. 6pp. 55-5", Rollo7
+rom said decision, only defendants +ederico del 0ilar and 1dilberto 2ontesiano, o*ner and driver, respectively, of
the sand and 'ravel truc8 have interposed an appeal before the respondent Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals
decided the appeal on a different li'ht. ,t rendered )ud'ment on +ebruary !5, !&#&, to *it/
@?1R1+4R1, the appealed )ud'ment is hereby R1V1R315 and 31T A3,51 and the complaint dismissed
insofar as defendants-appellants +ederico del 0ilar and 1dilberto 2ontesiano are concerned. o costs in
this instance.
34 4R51R15. 6p. &:, Rollo7
4n 2arch &, !&#&, the plaintiffs-appellees filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned Court of Appeals(
decision. ?o*ever, respondent Court of Appeals in a resolution dated Au'ust !", !&#& denied the motion for lac8 of
merit. ?ence, this petition.
0etitioners raised the follo*in' Buestions of la*, namely/
+irst. @hether the respondent Court can le'ally and validly absolve defendants-appellants from liability
despite its o*n findin', as *ell as that of the trial court that defendant-appellant 1dilberto 2ontesiano, the
car'o truc8 driver, *as drivin' an old vehicle very fast, *ith its *heels already *i''lin', such that he had no
more control of his truc8.
3econd. @hether the respondent court can validly and le'ally disre'ard the findin's of fact made by the trial
court *hich *as in a better position to observe the conduct and demeanor of the *itnesses, particularly
appellant 1dilberto 2ontesiano, car'o truc8 driver, and *hich conclusively found appellant 2ontesiano as
)ointly and severally ne'li'ent in drivin' his truc8 very fast and had lost control of his truc8.
Third. @hether the respondent court has properly and le'ally applied the doctrine of >last clear chance> in
the present case despite its o*n findin' that appellant car'o truc8 driver 1dilberto 2ontesiano *as
admittedly ne'li'ent in drivin' his car'o truc8 very fast on a descendin' road and in the presence of the bus
driver comin' from the opposite direction.
+ourth. @hether the respondent court has applied the correct la* and the correct doctrine so as to reverse
and set aside the )ud'ment *ith respect to defendants-appellants. 6Rollo, pp. !---!-47
As a rule, findin's of fact of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be revie*ed on appeal,
provided, they are borne out by the record or are based on substantial evidence ?o*ever, this rule admits of certain
e;ceptions, as *hen the findin's of facts are conclusions *ithout citation of specific evidence on *hich they are
based< or the appellate court(s findin's are contrary to those of the trial court. 63ese v. ,ntermediate Appellate Court,
G.R. ::!:#, -! %uly !&#", !5. 3CRA 5#57.
+urthermore, only Buestions of la* may be raised in a petition for revie* on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised
Rules of Court. The )urisdiction of the 3upreme Court in cases brou'ht to it from the Court of Appeals is limited to
revie*in' and revisin' the errors of la* imputed to it, its findin's of fact bein' conclusive. ,t is not the function of the
3upreme Court to analy=e or *ei'h such evidence all over a'ain, its )urisdiction bein' limited to revie*in' errors of
la* that mi'ht have been committed. 9arrin', therefore, a sho*in' that the findin's complained of are totally devoid
of support in the records, or that they are so 'larin'ly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion, such
findin's must stand for the 3upreme Court is not e;pected or reBuired to e;amine or contrast the oral and
documentary evidence submitted by the parties. 6Andres v. 2anufacturers ?anover and Trust Corp., G.R. #.:"$, !5
3eptember !&#&, !"" 3CRA :!#7.
9earin' in mind these basic principles, @e have opted to re-e;amine the findin's of fact mainly because the
appellate court(s findin's are contrary to those of the trial court.
The trial court, in declarin' that the ne'li'ent acts of both drivers directly caused the accident *hich led to the death
of the aforementioned persons, considered the follo*in'/
,t *as ne'li'ent on the part of driver 2ontesiano to have driven his truc8 fast, considerin' that it *as an old
vehicle, bein' a !&4" model as admitted by its o*ner, defendant 5el 0ilar< that its front *heels *ere
*i''lin'< that the road *as descendin'< and that there *as a passen'er bus approachin' it. Ai8e*ise, driver
3usulin *as also 'uilty of ne'li'ence in not ta8in' the necessary precaution to avoid the collision, in the li'ht
of his admission that, at a distance of -$ meters, he already sa* the front *heels of the truc8 *i''lin' and
that the vehicle *as usurpin' his lane comin' to*ards his direction. ?ad he e;ercised ordinary prudence, he
could have stopped his bus or s*erved it to the side of the road even do*n to its shoulder. And yet, 3usulin
shifted to third 'ear so as to, as claimed by him, 'ive more po*er and speed to his bus in overta8in' or
passin' a hand tractor *hich *as bein' pushed alon' the shoulder of the road. 6Rollo, p. 5$7
The respondent Court of Appeals. rulin' on the contrary, opined that >the bus driver had the last clear chance to avoid
the collision and his rec8less ne'li'ence in proceedin' to overta8e the hand tractor *as the pro;imate cause of the
collision.> 6Rollo, p. &57. 3aid court also noted that >the record also discloses that the bus driver *as not a competent
and responsible driver. ?is driver(s license *as confiscated for a traffic violation on April !", !&#- and he *as usin' a
tic8et for said traffic violation on the day of the accident in Buestion 6pp. !:-!#, T3, %uly .-, !&#47. ?e also admitted
that he *as not a re'ular driver of the bus that fi'ured in the mishap and *as not 'iven any practical e;amination.
6pp. !!, &:, T3, supra7.> 6Rollo, p&:7
The respondent Court Buotin' 0eople v. Vender, CA-G.R. !!!!4-4!-CR, Au'ust .#, !&"5 held that >@e are not
prepared to uphold the trial court(s findin' that the truc8 *as runnin' fast before the impact. The national road, from
its direction, *as descendin'. Courts can ta8e )udicial notice of the fact that a motor vehicle 'oin' do*n or
descendin' is more liable to 'et out of control than one that is 'oin' up or ascendin' for the simple reason that the
one *hich is 'oin' do*n 'ains added momentum *hile that *hich is 'oin' up loses its initial speedin' in so doin'.>
4n the other hand, the trial court found and @e are convinced that the car'o truc8 *as runnin' fast. ,t did not
overloo8 the fact that the road *as descendin' as in fact it mentioned this circumstance as one of the factors
disre'arded by the car'o truc8 driver alon' *ith the fact that he *as drivin' an old !&4" car'o truc8 *hose front
*heels are already *i''lin' and the fact that there is a passen'er bus approachin' it. ,n holdin' that the driver of the
car'o truc8 *as ne'li'ent, the trial court certainly too8 into account all these factors so it *as incorrect for the
respondent court to disturb the factual findin's of the trial court, *hich is in a better position to decide the Buestion,
havin' heard the *itness themselves and observed their deportment.
The respondent court adopted the doctrine of >last clear chance.> The doctrine, stated broadly, is that the ne'li'ence
of the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the ne'li'ence of the defendant *here it appears that the defendant,
by e;ercisin' reasonable care and prudence, mi'ht have avoided in)urious conseBuences to the plaintiff
not*ithstandin' the plaintiff(s ne'li'ence. ,n other *ords, the doctrine of last clear chance means that even thou'h a
person(s o*n acts may have placed him in a position of peril, and an in)ury results, the in)ured person is entitled to
recovery. As the doctrine is usually stated, a person *ho has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoidin' an
accident, not*ithstandin' the ne'li'ent acts of his opponent or that of a third person imputed to the opponent is
considered in la* solely responsible for the conseBuences of the accident. 63an'co, $orts and (ama"es 4th 1d.,
!&#:, p. !:57.
The practical import of the doctrine is that a ne'li'ent defendant is held liable to a ne'li'ent plaintiff, or even to a
plaintiff *ho has been 'rossly ne'li'ent in placin' himself in peril, if he, a*are of the plaintiffs peril, or accordin' to
some authorities, should have been a*are of it in the reasonable e;ercise of due case, had in fact an opportunity
later than that of the plaintiff to avoid an accident 65" Am. %ur., .d, pp. "&#-"&&7.
,n the recent case of 0hilippine Rabbit 9us Aines, ,nc. v. ,ntermediate Appellate Court, et al. 6G.R. os. ::!$.-$4,
Au'ust -$, !&&$7, the Court citin" the landmar8 decision held in the case of Anuran, et al. v. 9uno, et al. 6!.- 0hil.
!$"-7 ruled that the principle of >last clear chance> applies >in a suit bet*een the o*ners and drivers of collidin'
vehicles. ,t does not arise *here a passen'er demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual
obli'ations. +or it *ould be ineBuitable to e;empt the ne'li'ent driver of the )eepney and its o*ners on the 'round
that the other driver *as li8e*ise 'uilty of ne'li'ence.>
+urthermore, >as bet*een defendants/ The doctrine cannot be e;tended into the field of )oint tortfeasors as a test of
*hether only one of them should be held liable to the in)ured person by reason of his discovery of the latter(s peril,
and it cannot be invo8ed as bet*een defendants concurrently ne'li'ent. As a'ainst third persons, a ne'li'ent actor
cannot defend by pleadin' that another had ne'li'ently failed to ta8e action *hich could have avoided the in)ury.> 65"
Am. %ur. .d, pp. #$:-#$"7.
All premises considered, the Court is convinced that the respondent Court committed an error of la* in applyin' the
doctrine of last clear chance as bet*een the defendants, since the case at bar is not a suit bet*een the o*ners and
drivers of the collidin' vehicles but a suit brou'ht by the heirs of the deceased passen'ers a'ainst both o*ners and
drivers of the collidin' vehicles. Therefore, the respondent court erred in absolvin' the o*ner and driver of the car'o
truc8 from liability.
0ursuant to the ne* policy of this Court to 'rant an increased death indemnity to the heirs of the deceased, their
respective a*ards of 0-$,$$$.$$ are hereby increased to 05$,$$$.$$.
ACC4R5,GAN, the petition is GRAT15< the appealed )ud'ment and resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby
R1V1R315 and 31T A3,51 and the )ud'ment of the lo*er court is R1,3TAT15 *ith the modification on the
indemnity for death of each of the victims *hich is hereby increased to 05$,$$$.$$ each. o pronouncement as to
costs.
34 4R51R15.
/arvasa Cru) 0ancayco and 0ri1o-.quino ''. concur.
G.R. No. L1681:6 ,%.' 16, 1996
GEORGE M7EE and ARAELI 7O! M7EE, petitioners,
vs.
INTERME*IATE APPELLATE OURT, ,AIME TA0AG and ROSALIN*A MANALO,
respondents.
G.R. No. L1681:3 ,%.' 16, 1996
ARMEN *A0RIT 7O!, LETIIA 7O!, ,ULIETA 7O! TU5UERO, ARAELI 7O!
M7EE, ANTONIO 7O! and ELI(A"ET! 7O! TURLA, petitioners,
vs.
INTERME*IATE APPELLATE OURT, ,AIME TA0AG and ROSALIN*A MANALO,
respondents.
*A4I*E, JR., J.:
0etitioners ur'e this Court to revie* and reverse the Resolution of the Court of Appeals
in C.A.-G.R. CV os. :&$4$-4!, promul'ated on - April !&#4, *hich set aside its
previous 5ecision dated .& ovember !&#- reversin' the 5ecision of the trial court
*hich dismissed petitioners( complaints in Civil Case o. 44"" and Civil Case o. 44"#
of the then Court of +irst ,nstance 6no* Re'ional Trial Court7 of 0ampan'a entitled
>Carmen 5ayrit Hoh, Aeticia Hoh, %ulieta Hoh TuBuero, Araceli Hoh 2cHee and
1li=abeth Hoh Turla vs. %aime Taya' and Rosalinda 2analo,> and >Geor'e 2cHee and
Araceli Hoh 2cHee vs. %aime Taya' and Rosalinda 2analo,> respectively, and 'ranted
the private respondents( counterclaim for moral dama'es, attorney(s fees and liti'ation
e;penses.
The said civil cases for dama'es based on quasi-delict *ere filed as a result of a
vehicular accident *hich led to the deaths of %ose Hoh, Him Hoh 2cHee and Aoida
9ondoc and caused physical in)uries to Geor'e Hoh 2cHee, Christopher Hoh 2cHee
and petitioner Araceli Hoh 2cHee.
0etitioners in G.R. o. :#!$., parents of the minors Geor'e Hoh 2cHee, Christopher
Hoh 2cHee and the deceased Him Hoh 2cHee, *ere the plaintiffs in Civil Case o.
44"#, *hile petitioner Carmen 5ayrit Hoh and her co-petitioners in G.R. o. :#!$-, *ho
are the *ife and children, respectively, of the late %ose Hoh, *ere the plaintiffs in Civil
Case o. 44"". Kpon the other hand, private respondents are the o*ners of the car'o
truc8 *hich fi'ured in the mishap< a certain Ruben Galan' *as the driver of the truc8 at
the time of the accident.
The antecedent facts are not disputed.
9et*een nine and ten o(cloc8 in the mornin' of # %anuary !&"", in 0ulon' 0ulo 9rid'e
alon' 2acArthur ?i'h*ay, bet*een An'eles City and 3an +ernando, 0ampan'a, a
head-on-collision too8 place bet*een an ,nternational car'o truc8, Aoadstar, *ith 0late
o. R+&!.-T 0hilippines (": o*ned by private respondents, and driven by Ruben
Galan', and a +ord 1scort car bearin' 0late o. 3.-#5$ 0ampan'a (": driven by %ose
Hoh. The collision resulted in the deaths of %ose Hoh, Him Hoh 2cHee and Aoida
9ondoc, and physical in)uries to Geor'e Hoh 2cHee, Christopher Hoh 2cHee and
Araceli Hoh 2cHee, all passen'ers of the +ord 1scort.
%ose Hoh *as the father of petitioner Araceli Hoh 2cHee, the mother of minors Geor'e,
Christopher and Him Hoh 2cHee. Aoida 9ondoc, on the other hand, *as the baby sitter
of one and a half year old Him. At the time of the collision, Him *as seated on the lap of
Aoida 9ondoc *ho *as at the front passen'er(s seat of the car *hile Araceli and her t*o
6.7 sons *ere seated at the car(s bac8 seat.
,mmediately before the collision, the car'o truc8, *hich *as loaded *ith t*o hundred
6.$$7 cavans of rice *ei'hin' about !$,$$$ 8ilos, *as travelin' south*ard from An'eles
City to 3an +ernando 0ampan'a, and *as bound for 2anila. The +ord 1scort, on the
other hand, *as on its *ay to An'eles City from 3an +ernando. @hen the northbound
car *as about 6!$7 meters a*ay from the southern approach of the brid'e, t*o 6.7 boys
suddenly darted from the ri'ht side of the road and into the lane of the car. The boys
*ere movin' bac8 and forth, unsure of *hether to cross all the *ay to the other side or
turn bac8. %ose Hoh ble* the horn of the car, s*erved to the left and entered the lane of
the truc8< he then s*itched on the headli'hts of the car, applied the bra8es and
thereafter attempted to return to his lane. 9efore he could do so, his car collided *ith
the truc8. The collision occurred in the lane of the truc8, *hich *as the opposite lane, on
the said brid'e.
The incident *as immediately reported to the police station in An'eles City<
conseBuently, a team of police officers *as forth*ith dispatched to conduct an on the
spot investi'ation. ,n the s8etch
1
prepared by the investi'atin' officers, the brid'e is described to
be si;ty 6:$7 >footsteps> lon' and fourteen 6!47 >footsteps> *ide G seven 6"7 >footsteps> from the center
line to the inner ed'e of the side *al8 on both sides.
6
0ulon' 0ulo 9rid'e, *hich spans a dry broo8, is
made of concrete *ith soft shoulders and concrete railin's on both sides about three 6-7 feet hi'h.
The s8etch of the investi'atin' officer discloses that the ri'ht rear portion of the car'o truc8 *as t*o 6.7
>footsteps> from the ed'e of the ri'ht side*al8, *hile its left front portion *as touchin' the center line of
the brid'e, *ith the smashed front side of the car restin' on its front bumper. The truc8 *as about si;teen
6!:7 >footsteps> a*ay from the northern end of the brid'e *hile the car *as about thirty-si; 6-:7
>footsteps> from the opposite end. 38id mar8s produced by the ri'ht front tire of the truc8 measured nine
6&7 >footsteps>, *hile s8id mar8s produced by the left front tire measured five 657 >footsteps.> The t*o 6.7
rear tires of the truc8, ho*ever, produced no s8id mar8s.
,n his statement to the investi'atin' police officers immediately after the accident, Galan' admitted that
he *as travelin' at thirty 6-$7 miles 64# 8ilometers7 per hour.
As a conseBuence of the collision, t*o 6.7 cases, Civil Case o. 44"" and o. 44"#, *ere filed on -!
%anuary !&"" before the then Court of +irst ,nstance of 0ampan'a and *ere raffled to 9ranch ,,, and
9ranch V of the said court, respectively. ,n the first, herein petitioners in G.R. o. :#!$- prayed for the
a*ard of 0!.,$$$.$$ as indemnity for the death of %ose Hoh, 0!5$,$$$.$$ as moral dama'es,
0:$,$$$.$$ as e;emplary dama'es, 0!$,$$$.$$ for liti'ation e;penses, 0:,$$$.$$ for burial e;penses,
0-,:5$.$$ for the burial lot and 0&,5$$.$$ for the tomb, plus attorney(s fees.
3
,n the second case,
petitioners in G.R. o. :#!$. prayed for the follo*in'/ 6a7 in connection *ith the death of Him 2cHee, the
sum of 0!.,$$$.$$ as death benefit, 0-,!5$.$$ for funeral services, 0-,:5$.$$ for the cemetery lot,
0-,$$$.$$ for the tomb, 05$,$$$.$$ as moral dama'es, 0!$,$$$.$$ as e;emplary dama'es and
0.,$$$.$$ as miscellaneous dama'es< 6b7 in the case of Araceli Hoh 2cHee, in connection *ith the
serious physical in)uries suffered, the sum of 0!$$,$$$.$$ as moral dama'es, 0.$,$$$.$$ as e;emplary
dama'es, 0!.,$$$.$$ for loss of earnin's, 05,$$$.$$ for the hospitali=ation e;penses up to the date of
the filin' of the complaint< and 6c7 *ith respect to Geor'e 2cHee, %r., in connection *ith the serious
physical in)uries suffered, the sum of 05$,$$$.$$ as moral dama'es, 0.$,$$$.$$ as e;emplary dama'es
and the follo*in' medical e;penses/ 0-,4$$ payable to the 2edical Center, 0-,5$$.$$ payable to the 3t.
+rancis 2edical Center, 05,!"5.$$ payable to the Clar8 Air 9ase ?ospital, and miscellaneous e;penses
amountin' to 05,$$$.$$. They also sou'ht an a*ard of attorney(s fees amountin' to .5J of the total
a*ard plus travelin' and hotel e;penses, *ith costs.
8
4n ! 2arch !&"", an ,nformation char'in' Ruben Galan' *ith the crime of >Rec8less ,mprudence
Resultin' to 6sic7 2ultiple ?omicide and 0hysical ,n)uries and 5ama'e to 0roperty> *as filed *ith the trial
court. ,t *as doc8eted as Criminal Case o. -"5! and *as raffled to 9ranch V of the court, the same
9ranch *here Civil Case o. 44"# *as assi'ned.
9
,n their Ans*er *ith Counterclaim in Civil Case o. 44"", private respondents asserted that it *as the
+ord 1scort car *hich >invaded and bumped 6sic7 the lane of the truc8 driven by Ruben Galan' and, as
counterclaim, prayed for the a*ard of 0!5,$$$.$$ as attorney(s fees, 0.$,$$$.$$ as actual and liBuidated
dama'es, 0!$$,$$$.$$ as moral dama'es and 0-$,$$$.$$ as business losses.
6
,n Civil Case o. 44"#,
private respondents first filed a motion to dismiss on 'rounds of pendency of another action 6Civil Case
o. 44""7 and failure to implead an indispensable party, Ruben Galan', the truc8 driver< they also filed a
motion to consolidate the case *ith Civil Case o. 44"" pendin' before 9ranch ,,, of the same court,
*hich *as opposed by the plaintiffs.
7
9oth motions *ere denied by 9ranch V, then presided over by
%ud'e ,'nacio Capulon'. Thereupon, private respondents filed their Ans*er *ith Counter-claim 8 *herein
they alle'ed that %ose Hoh *as the person >at fault havin' approached the lane of the truc8 driven by Ruben
Galan', . . . *hich *as on the ri'ht lane 'oin' to*ards 2anila and at a moderate speed observin' all traffic rules and
re'ulations applicable under the circumstances then prevailin'<> in their counterclaim, they prayed for an a*ard of
dama'es as may be determined by the court after due hearin', and the sums of 0!$,$$$.$$ as attorney(s fees and
05,$$$.$$ as e;penses of liti'ation.
0etitioners filed their Ans*ers to the Counterclaims in both cases.
To e;pedite the proceedin's, the plaintiffs in Civil Case o. 44"# filed on ." 2arch !&"# a motion to adopt the
testimonies of *itnesses ta8en durin' the hearin' of Criminal Case o. -"5!, *hich private respondents opposed
and *hich the court denied.
9
0etitioners subseBuently moved to reconsider the order denyin' the motion for
consolidation,
1:
*hich %ud'e Capulon' 'ranted in the 4rder of 5 3eptember !&"#< he then directed that
Civil Case o. 44"# be consolidated *ith Civil Case o. 44"" in 9ranch ,,, of the court then presided over
by %ud'e 2ario CastaQeda, %r.
Aeft then *ith 9ranch V of the trial court *as Criminal Case o. -"5!.
,n the civil cases, the plaintiffs presented as *itnesses Araceli Hoh 2cHee, +ernando uQa', Col. Robert
+it='erald, 0rimitivo 0arel, 1u'enio Tanhueco, Carmen Hoh and Antonio Hoh,
11
and offered several
documentary e;hibits. Kpon the other hand, private respondents presented as *itnesses Ruben Galan',
Fenaida 3oliman, %aime Taya' and Roman 5ayrit.
16
,n the criminal case, the prosecution presented as *itnesses 2rs. Araceli 2cHee, 3alud 3amia, 0fc.
+ernando uQa', 5r. Ramon 0anlilio, 5r. Robert +it='erald, 5r. Roberto Nuson, 5r. ?ector, Klanday, 0fc.
9eni'no de Aeon, 2arina 9olos, 0rimitivo 0arel, Ro'elio 0ineda, 9enito Caraan and 1u'enio Tanhueco,
and offered several documentary e;hibits.
13
Kpon the other hand, the defense presented the accused
Ruben Galan', Auciano 0un=alan, Fenaida 3oliman and Roman 5ayrit, and offered documentary
e;hibits.
18
4n ! 4ctober !&#$, %ud'e Capulon' rendered a decision a'ainst the accused Ruben Galan' in the
aforesaid criminal case. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follo*s/
@?1R1+4R1, in vie* of the fore'oin', )ud'ment is hereby rendered findin' the accused Ruben
Galan' 'uilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime char'ed in the information and after applyin'
the provisions of Article -:5 of the Revised 0enal Code and indeterminate sentence la*, this
Court, imposes upon said accused Ruben Galan' the penalty of si; 6:7 months of arresto mayor
as minimum to t*o 6.7 years, four 647 months and one 6!7 day of prision correccional as
ma;imum< the accused is further sentenced to pay and indemnify the heirs of Aoida 9ondoc the
amount of 0!.,$$$.$$ as indemnity for her death< to reimburse the heirs of Aoida 9ondoc the
amount of 0.,$$$.$$ representin' the funeral e;penses< to pay the heirs of Aoida 9ondoc the
amount of 0.$,$$$.$$ representin' her loss of income< to indemnify and pay the heirs of the
deceased %ose Hoh the value of the car in the amount of 05-,&!$.&5, and to pay the costs.
19
The aforecited decision *as promul'ated only on !" ovember !&#$< on the same day, counsel for
petitioners filed *ith 9ranch ,,, of the court G *here the t*o 6.7 civil cases *ere pendin' G a
manifestation to that effect and attached thereto a copy of the decision.
16
Kpon the other hand, %ud'e 2ario CastaQeda, %r. dismissed the t*o 6.7 civil cases on !. ovember !&#$
and a*arded the private respondents moral dama'es, e;emplary dama'es and attorney(s fees.
17
The
dispositive portion of the said decision reads as follo*s/
@?1R1+4R1, findin' the preponderance of evidence to be in favor of the defendants and
a'ainst the plaintiffs, these cases are hereby ordered 5,32,3315 *ith costs a'ainst the
plaintiffs. The defendants had proven their counter-claim, thru evidences 6sic7 presented and
unrebutted. ?ence, they are hereby a*arded moral and e;emplary dama'es in the amount of
0!$$,$$$.$$ plus attorney(s fee of 0!5,$$$.$$ and liti'ation e;penses for 6sic7 0.,$$$.$$. The
actual dama'es claimed for 6sic7 by the defendants is 6sic7 hereby dismissin' for lac8 of proof to
that effect 6sic7.
18
A copy of the decision *as sent by re'istered mail to the petitioners on .# ovember !&#$ and *as
received on . 5ecember !&#$.
19
Accused Ruben Galan' appealed the )ud'ment of conviction to the Court of Appeals. The appeal *as
doc8eted as C.A.-G.R. 9l'. .4":4-CR and *as assi'ned to the court(s Third 5ivision. 0laintiffs in Civil
Cases os. 44"" and 44"# li8e*ise separately appealed the !. ovember !&#$ decision to the appellate
court. The appeals *ere doc8eted as C.A.-G.R. o. :&$4!-R and C.A.-G.R. o. :&$4$-R, respectively,
and *ere assi'ned to the +ourth Civil Cases 5ivision.
4n 4 4ctober !&#., the respondent Court promul'ated its decision
6:
in C.A.-G.R. 9l'. .4":4-CR
affirmin' the conviction of Galan'.
61
The dispositive portion of the decision reads/
(.2!* (!$, an" hatol na pa3sa n" nariton" pa"hahabol ay .min" pina"titibay sa 3anyan"
3abuuan. .n" na"hahabol pa rin an" pina"babayad n" "u"ol n" pa"hahabol.
A motion for reconsideration of the decision *as denied by the respondent Court in its %apasiyahan
promul'ated on .5 ovember !&#..
66
A petition for its revie*
63
*as filed *ith this Court< said petition *as
subseBuently denied. A motion for its reconsideration *as denied *ith finality in the Resolution of .$ April
!&#-.
68
4n .& ovember !&#-, respondent Court, by then 8no*n as the ,ntermediate Appellate Court,
promul'ated its consolidated decision in A.C.-G.R. CV os. :&$4$ and :&$4!,
69
the dispositive portion of
*hich reads/
@?1R1+4R1, the decision appealed from it hereby reversed and set aside and another one is
rendered, orderin' defendants-appellees to pay plaintiffs-appellants as follo*s/
+or the death of %ose Hoh/
0 5$,$$$.$$ as moral dama'es
0 !.,$$$.$$ as death indemnity
0 !:,$$$.$$ for the lot and tomb 61;hs. K and K-!7
0 4,$$$.$$ e;penses for holdin' a *a8e 6p. &, tsn April !&, !&"&7
0 &5$.$$ for the cas8et 61;h. 27
0 -"5.$$ for the vault services 61;hs. V and V-!7
+or the death of Him Hoh 2cHee/
0 5$,$$$.$$ as moral dama'es
0 !.,$$$.$$ as death indemnity
0 !,$$$.$$ for the purchase of the burial lot 61;h. 27
0 &5$.$$ for funeral services 61;h. 2-!7
0 -"5.$$ for vault services 61;hs. V and V-!7
+or the physical in)uries suffered by Geor'e Hoh 2cHee/
0 .5,$$$.$$ as moral dama'es
0 :"..$$ for Clar8 +ield ?ospital 61;h. 17
0 4,-#4.$$ paid to An'eles 2edical Clinic 61;hs. 5, 5-! and
5-.7
0 !,555.$$ paid to 3t. +rancis 2edical Center 61;hs. 9 and 9-!7
+or the physical in)uries suffered by Araceli Hoh 2cHee/
0 .5,$$$.$$ as moral dama'es
0 !,$55.$$ paid to 3t. +rancis 2edical Center 61;hs. G and
G-!7
0 "5.$$ paid to 3t. +rancis 2edical Center 61;hs. G-. and G--7
0 4.#.$$ to Carmelite General ?ospital 61;h. +7
0 !!4..$ to 2uQo= Clinic 61;h. 227
+or the physical in)uries suffered by Christopher Hoh 2cHee/
0 !$,$$$.$$ as moral dama'es
0 !,.-!.!$ to 3t. +rancis 2edical Center 61;hs. A and A-!7
0 -.!.&5 to +.C.1.A. ?ospital 61;hs. G and 5-!7
,n addition, @e a*ard 0!$,$$$.$$ as counsel 6sic7 fees in Civil Case o. 44"" and another
0!$,$$$.$$< as counsel 6sic7 fees in Civil Case o. 44"#.
o pronouncement as to costs.
34 4R51R15.
66
The decision is anchored principally on the respondent Court(s findin's that it *as Ruben Galan'(s
inattentiveness or rec8less imprudence *hich caused the accident. The appellate court further said that
the la* presumes ne'li'ence on the part of the defendants 6private respondents7, as employers of
Galan', in the selection and supervision of the latter< it *as further asserted that these defendants did not
alle'e in their Ans*ers the defense of havin' e;ercised the dili'ence of a 'ood father of a family in
selectin' and supervisin' the said employee.
67
This conclusion of rec8less imprudence is based on the
follo*in' findin's of fact/
,n the face of these diametrically opposed )udicial positions, the determinative issue in this appeal
is posited in the fourth assi'ned error as follo*s/
,V
T?1 TR,AA C4KRT 1RR15 @?1 ,T ?1A5 T?1 6sic7 5R,V1R 4+ T?1 TRKCH 3T40015 ?,3
TRKCH 9A1@ ?,3 ?4R 3@,TC?15 4 ?,3 ?1A5A,G?T3 A5 C4KA5 4T 3@1RV1 T4
T?1 R,G?T.
3upportive of plaintiffs( version, principal *itness Araceli Hoh 2cHee testified thus/
M @hat happened after that, as you approached the brid'eL
A @hen *e *ere approachin' the brid'e, t*o 6.7 boys tried to cross the ri'ht lane on the
ri'ht side of the hi'h*ay 'oin' to 3an +ernando. 2y father, *ho is 6sic7 the driver of the
car tried to avoid the t*o 6.7 boys *ho *ere crossin', he ble* his horn and s*erved to
the left to avoid hittin' the t*o 6.7 boys. @e noticed the truc8, he s*itched on the
headli'hts to *arn the truc8 driver, to slo* do*n to 'ive us the ri'ht of *ay to come bac8
to our ri'ht lane.
M 5id the truc8 slo* do*nL
A o, sir, it did not, )ust 6sic7 continued on its *ay.
M @hat happened after thatL
A After avoidin' the t*o 6.7 boys, the car tried to 'o bac8 to the ri'ht lane since the truc8
is 6sic7 comin', my father stepped on the bra8es and all *hat 6sic7 , heard is the sound of
impact 6sic7, sir. 6tsn, pp. 5-:, %uly .., !&""7< or 61;hibit >4> in these Civil Cases7.
;;; ;;; ;;;
M 2rs. ho* did you 8no* that the truc8 driven by the herein accused, Ruben Galan' did
not reduce its speed before the actual impact of collision 6sic7 as you narrated in this
1;hibit >!,> ho* did you 8no* 6sic7L
A ,t )ust 8ept on comin', sir. ,f only he reduced his speed, *e could have 'ot 6 sic7 bac8 to
our ri'ht lane on side 6sic7 of the hi'h*ay, sir. 6tsn. pp. ----4 %uly .., !&""7 or 61;hibit
>4> in these Civil Cases7 6pp. -$--!, Appellants( 9rief7.
0laintiffs( version *as successfully corroborated to 4ur satisfaction by the follo*in' facts and
circumstances/
!. An impartial eye-*itness to the mishap, 1u'enio Tanhueco, declared that the truc8 stopped
only *hen it had already collided *ith the car/
;;; ;;; ;;;
Tanhueco repeated the same testimony durin' the hearin' in the criminal case/
;;; ;;; ;;;
Tanhueco could 6sic7 not be ta''ed as an accommodation *itness because he *as one of the
first to arrive at the scene of the accident. As a matter of fact, he brou'ht one of the in)ured
passen'ers to the hospital.
@e are not prepared to accord faith and credit to defendants( *itnesses, Fenaida 3oliman, a
passen'er of the truc8, and Roman 5ayrit, *ho supposedly lived across the street.
Re'ardin' 3oliman, e;perience has sho*n that in the ordinary course of events people usually
ta8e the side of the person *ith *hom they are associated at the time of the accident, because,
as a 'eneral rule, they do not *ish to be identified *ith the person *ho *as at fault. Thus an
ima'inary bond is unconsciously created amon' the several persons *ithin the same 'roup
60eople vs. Vivencio, CA-G.R. o. $$-!$-CR, %an. -!, !&:.7.
@ith respect to 5ayrit, @e can not help suspectin' 6sic7 that he is an accommodation *itness. ?e
did not 'o to the succor of the in)ured persons. ?e said he *anted to call the police authorities
about the mishap, but his phone had no dial tone. 9e this 6sic7 as it may, the trial court in the
criminal case acted correctly in refusin' to believe 5ayrit.
.. 1;hibit ., the statement of Galan', does not include the claim that Galan' stopped his truc8 at
a safe distance from the car, accordin' to plaintiffs 6p. .5, Appellants( 9rief7. This contention of
appellants *as completely passed sub-silencio or *as not refuted by appellees in their brief.
1;hibit . is one of the e;hibits not included in the record. Accordin' to the Table of Contents
submitted by the court belo*, said 1;hibit . *as not submitted by defendants-appellees. ,n this
li'ht, it is not far-fetched to surmise that Galan'(s claim that he stopped *as an eleventh-hour
desperate attempt to e;culpate himself from imprisonment and dama'es.
-. Galan' divul'ed that he stopped after seein' the car about !$ meters a*ay/
ATTN. 34TT4/
M 5o , understand from your testimony that inspite of the fact that you admitted that the
road is strai'ht and you may be able to 6sic7 see 5$$-!$$$ meters a*ay from you any
vehicle, you first sa* that car only about ten 6!$7 meters a*ay from you for the first timeL
;;; ;;; ;;;
A , noticed it, sir, that it *as about ten 6!$7 meters a*ay.
ATTN. 34TT4/
M 3o, for clarification, you clarify and state under your oath that you have 6sic7 not
noticed it before that ten 6!$7 metersL 6Tsn. - to 5, 3ept. !#, !&"&7. 6p. !:, Appellants(
9rief7
Galan'(s testimony substantiate 6sic7 Tanhueco(s statement that Galan' stopped only because of
the impact. At ten 6!$7 meters a*ay, *ith the truc8 runnin' at -$ miles per hour, as revealed in
Galan'(s affidavit 61;h. .< p. .5, Appellants( brief7, it is *ell-ni'h impossible to avoid a collision on
a brid'e.
5. Galan'(s truc8 stopped because of the collision, and not because he *aited for %ose Hoh to
return to his proper lane. The police investi'ator, 0fc. +ernando A. uQa', stated that he found
s8id mar8s under the truc8 but there *ere not 6sic7 s8id mar8s behind the truc8 6pp. !&-.$, t.s.n.,
ov. -, !&"#7. The presence of s8id mar8s sho* 6sic7 that the truc8 *as speedin'. 3ince the s8id
mar8s *ere found under the truc8 and none *ere found at the rear of the truc8, the reasonable
conclusion is that the s8id mar8s under the truc8 *ere caused by the truc8(s front *heels *hen
the truc8s 6sic7 suddenly stopped seconds before the mishap in an endeavor to avoid the same.
9ut, as aforesaid, Galan' sa* the car at barely !$ meters a*ay, a very short distance to avoid a
collision, and in his futile endeavor to avoid the collision he abruptly stepped on his bra8es but the
smashup happened )ust the same.
+or the inattentiveness or rec8less imprudence of Galan', the la* presumes ne'li'ence on the
part of the defendants in the selection of their driver or in the supervision over him. Appellees did
not alle'e such defense of havin' e;ercised the duties of a 'ood father of a family in the selection
and supervision of their employees in their ans*ers. They did not even adduce evidence that they
did in fact have methods of selection and pro'rams of supervision. The inattentiveness or
ne'li'ence of Galan' *as the pro;imate cause of the mishap. ,f Galan'(s attention *as on the
hi'h*ay, he *ould have si'hted the car earlier or at a very safe distance than 6sic7 !$ meters. ?e
proceeded to cross the brid'e, and tried to stop *hen a collision *as already inevitable, because
at the time that he entered the brid'e his attention *as not riveted to the road in front of him.
4n the Buestion of dama'es, the claims of appellants *ere amply proven, but the items must be
reduced.
68
A motion for reconsideration alle'in' improper appreciation of the facts *as subseBuently filed by private
respondents on the basis of *hich the respondent Court, in its Resolution of - April !&#4,
69
reconsidered
and set aside its .& ovember !&#- decision and affirmed in toto the trial court(s )ud'ment of !.
ovember !&#$. A motion to reconsider this Resolution *as denied by the respondent Court on 4 %uly
!&#4.
3:
?ence, this petition.
0etitioners alle'e that respondent Court/
,
. . . C422,TT15 A V1RN 31R,4K3 A5 GRAV1 1RR4R @?1 ,T T4TAAAN R1V1R315 ,T3
51C,3,4 9N 21R1AN 9A3,G ,T +R42 6sic7 A 21R1 >0R13K20T,4,> T4TAAAN
5,3R1GAR5,G T?1 0R,VAT1 R130451T3( 5R,V1R(3 A52,33,43 A5
C4+133,43, @?4 1OCAK3,V1AN C422,TT15 T?1 0R4O,2AT1 CAK31 4+ T?1
ACC,51T 6sic7, +KRT?1R, ,T AA34 5,3R1GAR515 T?1 1V,51C1 A55KC15 A5
+4K5 , T?1 R1C4R53< T?1R1+4R1, R130451T C4KRT(3 R134AKT,43
6A1O13 A and 9, 01T,T,47 AR1 CA1ARAN 1RR414K3, 0KR1AN 9A315 4
301CKAAT,43, C4%1CTKR13 A5 @,T?4KT 3KR1 +4K5AT,4 , T?1 1V,51C1.
,,
. . . GRAV1AN A9K315 ,T3 5,3CR1T,4 A5 1RR15 @?1 , 1++1CT ,T 5,3R1GAR515
A 54CTR,1 AA,5 54@ 9N T?,3 ?44RA9A1 C4KRT 9N 3TAT,G A24G 4T?1R3, >,T
CA4T CAT1G4R,CAAAN A540T T?1 +,5,G3 4+ GK,AT , T?1 CR,2,AA CA31
@?1R1 T?1 5R,V1R 4+ T?1 TRKCH ,V4AV15 , T?1 ACC,51T @A3 ,5,CT15.
,,,
. . . 0AT1TAN C422,TT15 GRAV1 A9K31 4+ 5,3CR1T,4 A5 2A51 A 2,3A1A5,G
0R44KC121T, @?1 ,T ?1A5/ >,T ,3 T?K3 ,CK291T K04 T?1 0AA,T,++3-
A001AAAT3 6A001AA113 @R4GAN 21T,415 , T?1 R134AKT,47 T4 0R4V1
T?1,R AAA1GAT,43 T?AT T?1 0R4O,2AT1 CAK31 4+ T?1 ACC,51T @A3 T?1
1GA,G1C1 4+ 0R,VAT1 R130451T3( 5R,V1R.
,V
. . . C422,TT15 A4T?1R GR,1V,4K3 6sic7 1RR4R< C422,TT15 GRAV1 A9K31 4+
5,3CR1T,4 A5 C,T15 A4T?1R CA31 @?,C? ,3 CA1ARAN ,A00A,CA9A1 T4 T?131
CA313.
V
. . . C422,TT15 A 0AT1T 1RR4R A5 GRAV1AN A9K315 ,T3 5,3CR1T,4 , A540T,G
T?1 +,5,G3 4+ T?1 TR,AA C4KRT @?,C? AR1 CA1ARAN 1RR414K3 A5
C4TRARN T4 T?1 1V,51C1 +4K5 , T?1 R1C4R53, 301C,AAAN T?1N 6sic7 AR1
C4TRARN T4 T?1 A52,TT15 +ACT3 A5 %K5,C,AA A52,33,43 2A51 9N T?1
0R,VAT1 R130451T3( 5R,V1R.
V,
. . . 1OC11515 ,T3 %KR,35,CT,4, C422,TT15 GRAV1 A9K31 4+ 5,3CR1T,4 A5
GRAV1AN 1RR15 @?1 ,T A@AR515 5A2AG13 T4 T?1 0R,VAT1 R130451T3 @?1
3A,5 A@AR5 ,3 4T 3K004RT15 9N 1V,51C1, , T?1 R1C4R53, A5 3A,5 A@AR5 ,3
4T AAA4@15 9N AA@ A5 T?1 C43,3T1T 51C,3,43 4+ T?,3 ?44RA9A1 C4KRT.
V,,
. . . 1OC11515 ,T3 %KR,35,CT,4, C422,TT15 GRAV1 A9K31 4+ 5,3CR1T,4 A5
GRAV1AN 1RR15 @?1 ,T 1RR414K3AN 31T A3,51 ,T3 51C,3,4 A@AR5,G
5A2AG13 T4 01T,T,41R3 @?,C? ,3 CA1ARAN , ACC4R5AC1 @,T? T?1 1V,51C1,
T?1 AA@ A5 %KR,30RK51C1 R1AAT,V1 T4 T?1 A@AR5 4+ 5A2AG13.
31
,n the Resolution of !. 3eptember !&#4, @e reBuired private respondents to Comment on the petition.
36
After the said Comment
33
*as filed, petitioners submitted a Reply
38
thereto< this Court then 'ave due
course to the instant petitions and reBuired petitioners to file their 9rief,
39
*hich they accordin'ly
complied *ith.
There is merit in the petition. 9efore @e ta8e on the main tas8 of dissectin' the ar'uments and counter-
ar'uments, some observations on the procedural vicissitudes of these cases are in order.
Civil Cases os. 44"" and 44"#, *hich *ere for the recovery of civil liability arisin' from a quasi-delict
under Article .!": in relation to Article .!#$ of the Civil Code, *ere filed ahead of Criminal Case o.
-"5!. Civil Case o. 44"# *as eventually consolidated *ith Civil Case o. 44"" for )oint trial in 9ranch ,,,
of the trial court. The records do not indicate any attempt on the part of the parties, and it may therefore
be reasonably concluded that none *as made, to consolidate Criminal Case o. -"5! *ith the civil
cases, or vice-versa. The parties may have then believed, and understandably so, since by then no
specific provision of la* or rulin' of this Court e;pressly allo*ed such a consolidation, that an
independent civil action, authori=ed under Article -- in relation to Article .!"" of the Civil Code, such as
the civil cases in this case, cannot be consolidated *ith the criminal case. ,ndeed, such consolidation
could have been farthest from their minds as Article -- itself e;pressly provides that the >civil action shall
proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall reBuire only a preponderance of evidence.>
9e that as it may, there *as then no le'al impediment a'ainst such consolidation. 3ection !, Rule -! of
the Rules of Court, *hich see8s to avoid a multiplicity of suits, 'uard a'ainst oppression and abuse,
prevent delays, clear con'ested doc8ets to simplify the *or8 of the trial court, or in short, attain )ustice
*ith the least e;pense to the parties liti'ants,
36
*ould have easily sustained a consolidation, thereby
preventin' the unseemin', if no ludicrous, spectacle of t*o 6.7 )ud'es appreciatin', accordin' to their
respective orientation, perception and perhaps even pre)udice, the same facts differently and thereafter
renderin' conflictin" decisions. 3uch *as *hat happened in this case. ,t should not, hopefully, happen
anymore. ,n the recent case of Co4uan"co vs. Court or .ppeals
37
this Court held that the present
provisions of Rule !!! of the Revised Rules of Court allo* a consolidation of an independent civil action
for the recovery of civil liability authori=ed under Articles -., --, -4 or .!": of the Civil Code *ith the
criminal action sub)ect, ho*ever, to the condition that no final )ud'ment has been rendered in that criminal
case.
Aet it be stressed, ho*ever, that the )ud'ment in Criminal Case o. -"5! findin' Galan' 'uilty of rec8less
imprudence, althou'h already final by virtue of the denial by no less than this Court of his last attempt to
set aside the respondent Court(s affirmance of the verdict of conviction, has no relevance or importance to
this case.
As @e held in (ionisio vs. .lvendia
38
the responsibility arisin' from fault or ne'li'ence in a quasi-delict is
entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arisin' from ne'li'ence under the 0enal Code. And, as
more concretely stated in the concurrin' opinion of %ustice %.9.A. Reyes, >in the case of independent civil
actions under the ne* Civil Code, the result of the criminal case, *hether acBuittal or conviction, *ould be
entirely irrelevant to the civil action.>
39
,n #alta vs. (e 5eyra and P/B vs. Purisima
8:
this Court stated/
. . . ,t seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that the civil actions mentioned in Article --,
permitted in the same manner to be filed separately from the criminal case, may proceed similarly
re"ardless of the result of the criminal case.
,ndeed, *hen the la* has allo*ed a civil case related to a criminal case, to be filed separately
and to proceed independently even durin' the pendency of the latter case, the intention is patent
to ma8e the court(s disposition of the criminal case of no effect *hatsoever on the separate civil
case. This must be so because the offenses specified in Article -- are of such a nature, unli8e
other offenses not mentioned, that they may be made the sub)ect of a separate civil action
because of the distinct separability of their respective )uridical cause or basis of action . . . .
@hat remains to be the most important consideration as to *hy the decision in the criminal case should
not be considered in this appeal is the fact that private respondents *ere not parties therein. ,t *ould
have been entirely different if the petitioners( cause of action *as for dama'es arisin' from a delict in
*hich case private respondents( liability could only be subsidiary pursuant to Article !$- of the Revised
0enal Code. ,n the absence of any collusion, the )ud'ment of conviction in the criminal case a'ainst
Galan' *ould have been conclusive in the civil cases for the subsidiary liability of the private
respondents.
81
And no* to the merits of the petition.
,t is readily apparent from the pleadin's that the principal issue raised in this petition is *hether or not
respondent Court(s findin's in its challen'ed resolution are supported by evidence or are based on mere
speculations, con)ectures and presumptions.
The principle is *ell-established that this Court is not a trier of facts. Therefore, in an appeal by certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, only Buestions of la* may be raised. The resolution of
factual issues is the function of the lo*er courts *hose findin's on these matters are received *ith
respect and are, as a rule, bindin' on this Court.
86
The fore'oin' rule, ho*ever, is not *ithout e;ceptions. +indin's of facts of the trial courts and the Court of
Appeals may be set aside *hen such findin's are not supported by the evidence or *hen the trial court
failed to consider the material facts *hich *ould have led to a conclusion different from *hat *as stated
in its )ud'ment.
83
The same is true *here the appellate court(s conclusions are 'rounded entirely on
con)ectures, speculations and surmises
88
or *here the conclusions of the lo*er courts are based on a
misapprehension of facts.
89
,t is at once obvious to this Court that the instant case Bualifies as one of the aforementioned e;ceptions
as the findin's and conclusions of the trial court and the respondent Court in its challen'ed resolution are
not supported by the evidence, are based on an misapprehension of facts and the inferences made
therefrom are manifestly mista8en. The respondent Court(s decision of .& ovember !&#- ma8es the
correct findin's of fact.
,n the assailed resolution, the respondent Court held that the fact that the car improperly invaded the lane
of the truc8 and that the collision occurred in said lane 'ave rise to the presumption that the driver of the
car, %ose Hoh, *as ne'li'ent. 4n the basis of this presumed ne'li'ence, the appellate court immediately
concluded that it *as %ose Hoh(s ne'li'ence that *as the immediate and pro;imate cause of the collision.
This is an un*arranted deduction as the evidence for the petitioners convincin'ly sho*s that the car
s*erved into the truc8(s lane because as it approached the southern end of the brid'e, t*o 6.7 boys
darted across the road from the ri'ht side*al8 into the lane of the car. As testified to by petitioner Araceli
Hoh 2cHee/
M @hat happened after that, as you approached the brid'eL
A @hen *e *ere approachin' the brid'e, t*o 6.7 boys tried to cross the ri'ht lane on the
ri'ht side of the hi'h*ay 'oin' to 3an +ernando. 2y father, *ho is 6sic7 the driver of the
car tried to avoid the t*o 6.7 boys *ho *ere crossin', he ble* his horn and s*erved to
the left to avoid hittin' the t*o 6.7 boys. @e noticed the truc8, he s*itched on the
headli'hts to *arn the truc8 driver, to slo* do*n to 'ive us the ri'ht of *ay to come bac8
to our ri'ht lane.
M 5id the truc8 slo* do*nL
A o sir, it did not, )ust 6sic7 continued on its *ay.
M @hat happened after thatL
A After avoidin' the t*o 6.7 boys, the car tried to 'o bac8 to the ri'ht lane since the truc8
is 6sic7 comin', my father stepped on the bra8es and all *hat 6sic7 , heard is the sound of
impact 6sic7, sir.
86
?er credibility and testimony remained intact even durin' cross e;amination. %ose Hoh(s entry into the
lane of the truc8 *as necessary in order to avoid *hat *as, in his mind at that time, a 'reater peril G
death or in)ury to the t*o 6.7 boys. 3uch act can hardly be classified as ne'li'ent.
e'li'ence *as defined and described by this Court in *ayu"an vs. !ntermediate .ppellate Court
87
thus/
. . . e'li'ence is the omission to do somethin' *hich a reasonable man, 'uided by those
considerations *hich ordinarily re'ulate the conduct of human affairs, *ould do, or the doin' of
somethin' *hich a prudent and reasonable man *ould not do 69lac8(s Aa* 5ictionary, +ifth
1dition, &-$7, or as %ud'e Cooley defines it, >6T7he failure to observe for the protection of the
interests of another person, that de'ree of care, precaution, and vi'ilance *hich the
circumstances )ustly demand, *hereby such other person suffers in)ury.> 6Cooley on Torts, +ourth
1dition, vol. -, .:57
,n 0icart vs. 3mith 6-" 0hil #$&, #!-7, decided more than seventy years a'o but still a sound rule,
6@7e held/
The test by *hich to determine the e;istence of ne'li'ence in a particular case may be
stated as follo*s/ 5id the defendant in doin' the alle'ed ne'li'ent act use that
(reasonable care and caution +hich an ordinarily prudent person +ould have used in the
same situation6) ,f not, then he is 'uilty of ne'li'ence. The la* here in effect adopts the
standard supposed to be supplied by the ima'inary conduct of the discreet paterfamilias
of the Roman
la*. . . .
,n Corliss vs. 7anila Railroad Company
88
@e held/
. . . e'li'ence is *ant of the care reBuired by the circumstances. ,t is a relative or comparative,
not an absolute, term and its application depends upon the situation of the parties and the de'ree
of care and vi'ilance *hich the circumstances reasonably reBuire. @here the dan'er is 'reat, a
hi'h de'ree of care is necessary, and the failure to observe it is a *ant of ordinary care under the
circumstances. 6citin' Ahern v. 4re'on Telephone Co., -5 0ac. 54& 6!#&47.
4n the basis of the fore'oin' definition, the test of ne'li'ence and the facts obtainin' in this case, it is
manifest that no ne'li'ence could be imputed to %ose Hoh. Any reasonable and ordinary prudent man
*ould have tried to avoid runnin' over the t*o boys by s*ervin' the car a*ay from *here they *ere even
if this *ould mean enterin' the opposite lane. Avoidin' such immediate peril *ould be the natural course
to ta8e particularly *here the vehicle in the opposite lane *ould be several meters a*ay and could very
*ell slo* do*n, move to the side of the road and 'ive *ay to the oncomin' car. 2oreover, under *hat is
8no*n as the emer'ency rule, >one *ho suddenly finds himself in a place of dan'er, and is reBuired to act
*ithout time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impendin' dan'er, is not 'uilty
of ne'li'ence, if he fails to adopt *hat subseBuently and upon reflection may appear to have been a
better method, unless the emer'ency in *hich he finds himself is brou'ht about by his o*n ne'li'ence.>
89
Considerin' the sudden intrusion of the t*o 6.7 boys into the lane of the car, @e find that %ose Hoh
adopted the best means possible in the 'iven situation to avoid hittin' them. Applyin' the above test,
therefore, it is clear that he *as not 'uilty of ne'li'ence.
,n any case, assumin', ar"uendo that %ose Hoh is ne'li'ent, it cannot be said that his ne'li'ence *as the
pro;imate cause of the collision. 0ro;imate cause has been defined as/
. . . that cause, *hich, in natural and continuous seBuence, unbro8en by any efficient intervenin'
cause, produces the in)ury, and *ithout *hich the result *ould not have occurred. And more
comprehensively, the pro;imate le'al cause is that actin' first and producin' the in)ury, either
immediately or by settin' other events in motion, all constitutin' a natural and continuous chain of
events, each havin' a close causal connection *ith its immediate predecessor, the final event in
the chain immediately effectin' the in)ury as a natural and probable result of the cause *hich first
acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an
ordinary prudent and intelli'ent person, have reasonable 'round to e;pect at the moment of his
act or default that an in)ury to some person mi'ht probably result therefrom.
9:
Applyin' the above definition, althou'h it may be said that the act of %ose Hoh, if at all ne'li'ent, *as the
initial act in the chain of events, it cannot be said that the same caused the eventual in)uries and deaths
because of the occurrence of a sufficient intervenin' event, the ne'li'ent act of the truc8 driver, *hich
*as the actual cause of the tra'edy. The entry of the car into the lane of the truc8 *ould not have resulted
in the collision had the latter heeded the emer'ency si'nals 'iven by the former to slo* do*n and 'ive
the car an opportunity to 'o bac8 into its proper lane. ,nstead of slo*in' do*n and s*ervin' to the far
ri'ht of the road, *hich *as the proper precautionary measure under the 'iven circumstances, the truc8
driver continued at full speed to*ards the car. The truc8 driver(s ne'li'ence becomes more apparent in
vie* of the fact that the road is ".5$ meters *ide *hile the car measures !.5&# meters and the truc8,
...#: meters, in *idth. This *ould mean that both car and truc8 could pass side by side *ith a clearance
of -.::! meters to spare.
91
+urthermore, the brid'e has a level side*al8 *hich could have partially
accommodated the truc8. Any reasonable man findin' himself in the 'iven situation *ould have tried to
avoid the car instead of meetin' it head-on.
The truc8 driver(s ne'li'ence is apparent in the records. ?e himself said that his truc8 *as runnin' at -$
miles 64# 8ilometers7 per hour alon' the brid'e *hile the ma;imum speed allo*ed by la* on a brid'e
96
is
only -$ 8ilometers per hour. Knder Article .!#5 of the Civil Code, a person drivin' a vehicle is presumed
ne'li'ent if at the time of the mishap, he *as violatin' any traffic re'ulation. @e cannot 'ive credence to
private respondents( claim that there *as an error in the translation by the investi'atin' officer of the truc8
driver(s response in 0ampan'o as to *hether the speed cited *as in 8ilometers per hour or miles per
hour. The la* presumes that official duty has been re'ularly performed<
93
unless there is proof to the
contrary, this presumption holds. ,n the instant case, private respondents( claim is based on mere
con)ecture.
The truc8 driver(s ne'li'ence *as li8e*ise duly established throu'h the earlier Buoted testimony of
petitioner Araceli Hoh 2cHee *hich *as duly corroborated by the testimony of 1u'enio Tanhueco, an
impartial eye*itness to the mishap.
Araceli Hoh 2cHee testified further, thus/
;;; ;;; ;;;
M 2rs. ho* did you 8no* that the truc8 driven by the herein accused, Ruben Galan' did
not reduce its speed before the actual impact of collision as you narrated in this 1;hibit
>!,> ho* did you 8no*L
A ,t )ust 8ept on comin', sir. ,f only he reduced his speed, *e could have 'ot 6 sic7 bac8 to
our ri'ht lane on side 6sic7 of the hi'h*ay, sir. 6tsn, pp. ----4, %uly .., !&""7 or 61;hibit<
>4> in these Civil Cases7 6pp. -$--!, Appellants( 9rief7
98
*hile 1u'enio Tanhueco testified thus/
M @hen you sa* the truc8, ho* *as it movin'L
A ,t *as movin' 5$ to :$ 8ilometers per hour, sir.
M ,mmediately after you sa* this truc8, do you 8no* *hat happenedL
A , sa* the truc8 and a car collided 6sic7, sir, and , *ent to the place to help the victims.
6tsn. .#, April !&, !&"&7
;;; ;;; ;;;
M +rom the time you sa* the truc8 to the time of the impact, *ill you tell us if the said
truc8 ever stoppedL
A ! sa+ it stopped (sic) +hen it has (sic) already collided +ith the car and it +as already
motionless. 6tsn. -!, April !&, !&"&< 1mphasis 3upplied7. 6p. .", Appellants( 9rief7.
99
Clearly, therefore, it *as the truc8 driver(s subseBuent ne'li'ence in failin' to ta8e the proper measures
and de'ree of care necessary to avoid the collision *hich *as the pro;imate cause of the resultin'
accident.
1ven if %ose Hoh *as indeed ne'li'ent, the doctrine of last clear chance finds application here. Aast clear
chance is a doctrine in the la* of torts *hich states that the contributory ne'li'ence of the party in)ured
*ill not defeat the claim for dama'es if it is sho*n that the defendant mi'ht, by the e;ercise of reasonable
care and prudence, have avoided the conseBuences of the ne'li'ence of the in)ured party. ,n such cases,
the person *ho had the last clear chance to avoid the mishap is considered in la* solely responsible for
the conseBuences thereof.
96
,n Bustamante vs. Court of .ppeals
97
@e held/
The respondent court adopted the doctrine of >last clear chance.> The doctrine, stated broadly, is
that the ne'li'ence of the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the ne'li'ence of the
defendant *here it appears that the defendant, by e;ercisin' reasonable care and prudence,
mi'ht have avoided in)urious conseBuences to the plaintiff not*ithstandin' the plaintiff(s
ne'li'ence. ,n other *ords, the doctrine of last clear chance means that even thou'h a person(s
o*n acts may have placed him in a position of peril, and an in)ury results, the in)ured person is
entitled to recovery 6sic7. As the doctrine is usually stated, a person *ho has the last clear chance
or opportunity of avoidin' an accident, not*ithstandin' the ne'li'ent acts of his opponent or that
of a third person imputed to the opponent is considered in la* solely responsible for the
conseBuences of the accident. 63an'co, Torts and 5ama'es, 4th 1d., !&#:, p. !:57.
The practical import of the doctrine is that a ne'li'ent defendant is held liable to a ne'li'ent
plaintiff, or even to a plaintiff *ho has been 'rossly ne'li'ent in placin' himself in peril, if he,
a*are of the plaintiff(s peril, or accordin' to some authorities, should have been a*are of it in the
reasonable e;ercise of due care, had in fact an opportunity later than that of the plaintiff to avoid
an accident 65" Am. %ur., .d, pp. "&#-"&&7.
,n Pantranco /orth 8xpress !nc. vs. Baesa
98
@e ruled/
The doctrine of last clear chance *as defined by this Court in the case of 4n' v. 2etropolitan
@ater 5istrict, !$4 0hil. -&" 6!&5#7, in this *ise/
The doctrine of the last clear chance simply, means that the ne'li'ence of a claimant
does not preclude a recovery for the ne'li'ence of defendant *here it appears that the
latter, by e;ercisin' reasonable care and prudence, mi'ht have avoided in)urious
conseBuences to claimant not*ithstandin' his ne'li'ence.
The doctrine applies only in a situation *here the plaintiff *as 'uilty of prior or antecedent
ne'li'ence but the defendant, *ho had the last fair chance to avoid the impendin' harm and
failed to do so, is made liable for all the conseBuences of the accident not*ithstandin' the prior
ne'li'ence of the plaintiff C0icart v. 3mith, -" 0hil. #$& 6!&!#7< Glan 0eople(s Aumber and
?ard*are, et al. vs. ,ntermediate Appellate Court, Cecilia Alfere= Vda. de Calibo, et al., G.R. o.
"$4&-, 2ay, !#, !&#&D. The subseBuent ne'li'ence of the defendant in failin' to e;ercise ordinary
care to avoid in)ury to plaintiff becomes the immediate or pro;imate cause of the accident *hich
intervenes bet*een the accident and the more remote ne'li'ence of the plaintiff, thus ma8in' the
defendant liable to the plaintiff C0icart v. 3mith, supraD.
Generally, the last clear chance doctrine is invo8ed for the purpose of ma8in' a defendant liable
to a plaintiff *ho *as 'uilty of prior or antecedent ne'li'ence, althou'h it may also be raised as a
defense to defeat claim 6sic7 for dama'es.
Applyin' the fore'oin' doctrine, it is not difficult to rule, as @e no* rule, that it *as the truc8 driver(s
ne'li'ence in failin' to e;ert ordinary care to avoid the collision *hich *as, in la*, the pro;imate cause of
the collision. As employers of the truc8 driver, the private respondents are, under Article .!#$ of the Civil
Code, directly and primarily liable for the resultin' dama'es. The presumption that they are ne'li'ent
flo*s from the ne'li'ence of their employee. That presumption, ho*ever, is only 4uris tantum not 4uris et
de 4ure.
99
Their only possible defense is that they e;ercised all the dili'ence of a 'ood father of a family to
prevent the dama'e. Article .!#$ reads as follo*s/
The obli'ation imposed by Article .!": is demandable not only for one(s o*n acts or omissions,
but also for those of persons for *hom one is responsible.
;;; ;;; ;;;
1mployers shall be liable for the dama'es caused by their employees and household helpers
actin' *ithin the scope of their assi'ned tas8s, even thou'h the former are not en'a'ed in any
business or industry.
;;; ;;; ;;;
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease *hen the persons herein mentioned prove
that they observed all the dili'ence of a 'ood father of a family to prevent dama'e.
The dili'ence of a 'ood father referred to means the dili'ence in the selection and supervision of
employees.
6:
The ans*ers of the private respondents in Civil Cases os. 44"" and 44"# did not
interpose this defense. either did they attempt to prove it.
The respondent Court *as then correct in its 5ecision of .& ovember !&#- in reversin' the decision of
the trial court *hich dismissed Civil Cases os. 44"" and 44"#. ,ts assailed Resolution of - April !&#4
finds no sufficient le'al and factual moorin's.
,n the li'ht of recent decisions of this Court,
61
the indemnity for death must, ho*ever, be increased from
0!.,$$$.$$ to 05$,$$$.$$.
@?1R1+4R1, the instant petition is GRAT15. The assailed Resolution of the respondent Court of -
April !&#4 is 31T A3,51 *hile its 5ecision of .& ovember !&#- in C.A.-G.R. CV os. :&$4$-4! is
R1,3TAT15, sub)ect to the modification that the indemnity for death is increased from 0!.,$$$.$$ to
05$,$$$.$$ each for the death of %ose Hoh and Him Hoh 2cHee.
Costs a'ainst private respondents.
34 4R51R15.
0utierre) 'r. Feliciano and Romero ''. concur.
Bidin '. too3 no part.
G.R. No. L-19331 April 30, 1965
VICTORIA G. CAPUNO and JO!P"IN! G. CAPUNO, plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
P!PI-COLA #OTTLING CO$PAN% O& T"! P"ILIPPIN! and JON !LOR'I,
defendants-appellees.
Federico Andres for plaintiffs-appellants.
Vicente J. Francisco for defendants-appellees.
$A(ALINTAL, J.:
This appeal (in forma pauperis), certified here by the Court of Appeals, is from the order of the
Court of First Instance of Tarlac dismissing appellants complaint in Civil Case !o. ""#$ for
recovery of damages for the death of Cipriano Capuno.
The case arose from a vehicular collision %hich occurred on &anuary ", #'$" in Apalit,
(ampanga. Involved %ere a (epsi-Cola delivery truc) driven by &on *lordi and a private car
driven by Capuno. The collision proved fatal to the latter as %ell as to his passengers, the spouses
Florencio +uan and ,i-alina (aras.
.n &anuary $, #'$" *lordi %as charged %ith triple homicide through rec)less imprudence in the
Court of First Instance of (ampanga (criminal case !o. #$'#). The information %as subse/uently
amended to include claims for damages by the heirs of the three victims.
It is urged for the applicant that no opposition has been registered against his petition on the
issues above-discussed. Absence of opposition, ho%ever, does not preclude the scanning of the
%hole record by the appellate court, %ith a vie% to preventing the conferment of citi-enship to
persons not fully /ualified therefor (0ee !g 0en vs. ,epublic, 1.,. !o. 0-23#$#, 4arch "#,
#'5$). The applicants complaint of unfairness could have some %eight if the ob6ections on
appeal had been on points not previously passed upon. +ut the deficiencies here in /uestion are
not ne% but %ell-)no%n, having been ruled upon repeatedly by this Court, and %e see no e7cuse
for failing to ta)e them into account.1wph1.t
.n .ctober #, #'$", %hile the criminal case %as pending, the Intestate *state of the +uan
spouses and their heirs filed a civil action, also for damages, in the Court of First Instance of
Tarlac against the (epsi-Cola +ottling Company of the (hilippines and &on *lordi (civil case !o.
8"8). Included in the complaint %as a claim for indemnity in the sum of (2,52".33 allegedly paid
by the *state to the heirs of Capuno under the 9or)mens Compensation Act.
In the criminal case both the heirs of Capuno and the *state of +uan : the former being
appellants herein : %ere represented by their respective counsel as private prosecutors;
Attorney ,icardo <. !avarro and Attorneys &ose 9. =io)no and Augusto 4. Ilagan. In vie% of
the filing of the civil action the accused &on *lordi moved to stri)e out the appearances of these
private prosecutors in the criminal case. 1rounds for the motion %ere (#) that as the Capuno
heirs %ere concerned, they no longer had any interest to protect in the criminal case since they
had already claimed and received compensation for the death of their decedent> and (2) that on
the part of the *state of +uan its right to intervene in said case had been abated by the civil
action.
The appearance and intervention of Attorneys =io)no and Ilagan %as disallo%ed by the Court in
an order dated ?eptember 2", #'$", and that of Attorney !avarro %as disallo%ed in an amending
order dated .ctober 2", #'$@. !o appeal %as ta)en from either of the t%o orders.
.n &une ##, #'$8 the parties in Civil Case !o. 8"8 entered into a ACompromise and ?ettlement.A
For (2'3,333.33 the +uan *state gave up its claims for damages, including the claim for
reimbursement of the sum of (2,52".33 previously paid to the heirs of Capuno Aunder the
9or)mens Compensation Act.A The Court approved the compromise and accordingly dismissed
the case on the follo%ing &une #B.
At that time the criminal case %as still pending> 6udgment %as rendered only on April #$, #'$',
%herein the accused *lordi %as ac/uitted of the charges against him. (rior thereto, or on
?eptember 25, #'$8, ho%ever, herein appellants commenced a civil action for damages against
the (epsi-Cola +ottling Company of the (hilippines and &on *lordi. This is the action %hich,
upon appellees motion, %as dismissed by the Court a quo in its order of February 2', #'53, from
%hich order the present appeal has been ta)en.
The grounds upon %hich appellees based their motion for dismissal and %hich the Court found
to be A%ell ta)enA %ere> (#) that the action had already prescribed> and (2) that appellees had
been released from appellants claim for damages by virtue of the payment to the latter of the
sum of (2,52".33 by the +uan *state under the 9or)mens Compensation Act, %hich sum, in
turn, %as sought to be recovered by the said *state from appellees in Civil Case !o. 8"8 but
finally settled by them in their compromise.
The ruling of the court belo% on both points is no% assailed by appellants as erroneous. In our
opinion the /uestion of prescription is decisive. There can be no doubt that the present action is
one for recovery of damages based on a quasi-delict, %hich action must be instituted %ithin four
(@) years (Article ##@5, Civil Code). Appellants originally sought to enforce their claim ex-
delicto, that is, under the provisions of the (enal Code, %hen they intervened in the criminal case
against &on *lordi. The information therein, it may be recalled, %as amended precisely to include
an allegation concerning damages suffered by the heirs of the victims of the accident for %hich
*lordi %as being prosecuted. +ut appellants intervention %as subse/uently disallo%ed and they
did not appeal from the Courts order to the effect. And %hen they commenced the civil action on
?eptember 25, #'$8 the criminal case %as still pending, sho%ing that appellants then chose to
pursue the remedy afforded by the Civil Code, for other%ise that action %ould have been
premature and in any event %ould have been concluded by the subse/uent 6udgment of ac/uittal
in the criminal case.
In filing the civil action as they did appellants correctly considered it as entirely independent of
the criminal action, pursuant to Articles "# and "" of the Civil Code, %hich read;
A,T. "#. 9hen the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission
complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal
proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.
A,T. "". In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical in6uries, a civil action for damages,
entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the in6ured party.
?uch civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall re/uire
only a preponderance of evidence.
The term Aphysical in6uriesA in Article "" includes bodily in6uries causing death (=yogi v. <atco,
1.,. !o. 0-'52", &an. 22, #'$B, 22 0.&. #B$). In other %ords, the civil action for damages could
have been commenced by appellants immediately upon the death of their decedent, Cipriano
Capuno, on &anuary ", #'$" or thereabouts, and the same %ould not have been stayed by the
filing of the criminal action for homicide through rec)less imprudence. +ut the complaint here
%as filed only on ?eptember 25, #'$8, or after the lapse of more than five years.
In the case of Diocosa aulan! et al. "s. #acarias $ara%ia! et al.! 1.,. !o. 0-#3$@2, promulgated
&uly "#, #'$8, this Court held that an action based on a quasi-delict is governed by Article ##$3
of the Civil Code as to the /uestion of %hen the prescriptive period of four years shall begin to
run, that is, Afrom the day (the action) may be brought,A %hich means from the day the quasi-
delict occurred or %as committed.
The foregoing considerations dispose of appellants contention that the four-year period of
prescription in this case %as interrupted by the filing of the criminal action against &on *lordi
inasmuch as they had neither %aived the civil action nor reserved the right to institute it
separately. ?uch reservation %as not then necessary> %ithout having made it they could file : as
in fact they did : a separate civil action even during the pendency of the criminal case ((acheco
v. Tumangday, 0-#@$33, 4ay 2$, #'53> A-ucena v. (otenciano, 0-#@328, &une "3, #'52)> and
conse/uently, as held in aulan ". $ara%ia! supra! Athe institution of a criminal action cannot
have the effect of interrupting the institution of a civil action based on a quasi-delict.A
As to %hether or not ,ule ###, ?ection 2, of the ,evised ,ules of Court %hich re/uires the
reservation of the right to institute a separate and independent civil action in the cases provided
for in Articles "#, "2, "", "@, and 2#BB of the Civil Code affects the /uestion of prescription, %e
do not no% decide. The said rule does not apply in the present case.
Caving found the action of appellants barred by the statute of limitations, %e do not consider it
necessary to pass upon the other issues raised in their brief.
The order appealed from is affirmed, %ithout costs.
&en'(on! ).J.! &autista An'elo! )oncepcion! *e+es! J.&.,.! &arrera! aredes! Di(on! *e'ala
G.R. No. L-1013) J*n+ ,9, 195-
A#INA !.CON'!, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
'!L&IN CAPUNO and 'ANT! CAPUNO, defendants-appellees.
-a'no .. &ueser for appellant.
Al"er ,aw /ffices and 0don &. &rion and Vencedor A. Ali1ario for appellees.
#AUTITA ANG!LO, J./
=ante Capuno, son of =elfin Capuno, %as accused of double homicide through rec)less
imprudence for the death of Isidoro Caperina and Amado Tic-on on 4arch "#, #'@' in the Court
of First Instance of 0aguna (Criminal Case !o. #$33#). =uring the trial, ?abina *7conde, as
mother of the deceased Isidoro Caperina, reserved her right to bring a separate civil action for
damages against the accused. After trial, =ante Capuno %as found guilty of the crime charged
and, on appeal, the Court Appeals affirmed the decision. =ante Capuno %as only (#$) years old
%hen he committed the crime.
In line %ith her reservation, ?abina *7conde filed the present action against =elfin Capuno and
his son =ante Capuno as)ing for damages in the aggregate amount of (2,'$'.33 for the death of
her son Isidoro CaperiDa. =efendants set up the defense that if any one should be held liable for
the death of Isidoro Caperina, he is =ante Capuno and not his father =elfin because at the time
of the accident, the former %as not under the control, supervision and custody, of the latter. This
defense %as sustained by the lo%er court and, as a conse/uence it only convicted =ante Capuno
to pay the damages claimed in the complaint. From decision, plaintiff appealed to the Court of
Appeals but the case %as certified to us on the ground that the appeal only involves /uestions of
la%.
It appears that =ante Capuno %as a member of the +oy ?couts .rgani-ation and a student of the
+ilinta%a) *lementary ?chool situated in a barrio in the City of ?an (ablo and on 4arch "#,
#'@' he attended a parade in honor of =r. &ose ,i-al in said city upon instruction of the city
schools supervisor. From the school =ante, %ith other students, boarded a 6eep and %hen the
same started to run, he too) hold of the %heel and drove it %hile the driver sat on his left side.
They have not gone far %hen the 6eep turned turtle and t%o of its passengers, Amado Tic-on and
Isidore CaperiDa, died as a conse/uence. It further appears that =elfin Capuno, father of =ante,
%as not %ith his son at the time of the accident, nor did he )no% that his son %as going to attend
a parade. Ce only came to )no% it %hen his son told him after the accident that he attended the
parade upon instruction of his teacher.
The only issue involved in this appeal is %hether defendant =elfin Capuno can be held civilly
liable, 6ointly and severally %ith his son =ante, for damages resulting from the death of Isidoro
CaperiDa caused by the negligent act of minor =ante Capuno.
The case comes under Article #'3" of the ?panish Civil Code, paragraph # and $, %hich
provides;
A,T. #'3". The obligation impossed by the ne7t preceding articles is enforceable not only
for personal acts and omissions, but also for those of persons for %hom another is
responsible.
The father, and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are liable for any damages
caused by the minor children %ho live %ith them.
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Finally, teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for any damages caused by their
pupils or apprentices %hile they are under their custody.
(laintiff contends that defendant =elfin Capuno is liable for the damages in /uestion 6ointly and
severally %ith his son =ante because at the time the latter committed the negligent act %hich
resulted in the death of the victim, he %as a minor and %as then living %ith his father, and
inasmuch as these facts are not disputed, the civil liability of the father is evident. And so,
plaintiff contends, the lo%er court erred in relieving the father from liability.
9e find merit in this claim. It is true that under the la% above /uoted, Ateachers or directors of
arts and trades are liable for any damages caused by their pupils or apprentices %hile they are
under their custodyA, but this provision only applies to an institution of arts and trades and not to
any academic educational institution ((adilla, Civil 0a%, #'$", *d., Eol. IE, p. 8@#> ?ee #2
4anresa, @th *d., p. $$B). Cere =ante capuno %as then a student of the +alinta%a) *lementary
?chool and as part of his e7tra-curricular activity, he attended the parade in honor of =r. &ose
,i-al upon instruction of the city schools supervisor. And it %as in connection %ith that parade
that =ante boarded a 6eep %ith some companions and %hile driving it, the accident occurred. In
the circumstances, it is clear that neither the head of that school, nor the city schools supervisor,
could be held liable for the negligent act of =ante because he %as not then a student of an
institute of arts and trades as provided by la%.
The civil liability %hich the la% impose upon the father, and, in case of his death or incapacity,
the mother, for any damages that may be caused by the minor children %ho live %ith them, is
obvious. This is necessary conse/uence of the parental authority they e7ercise over them %hich
imposes upon the parents the Aduty of supporting them, )eeping them in their company,
educating them and instructing them in proportion to their meansA, %hile, on the other hand,
gives them the Aright to correct and punish them in moderationA (Articles #$@ and #$$, ?panish
Civil Code). The only %ay by %hich they can relieve themselves of this liability is if they prove
that they e7ercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage(Article
#'3", last paragraph, ?panish Civil Code). This defendants failed to prove.
9C*,*F.,*, the decision appealed from is modified in the sense that defendants =elfin
Capuno and =ante Capuno shall pay to plaintiff, 6ointly and severally, the sum of (2,'$'.33 as
damages, and the costs of action.
&en'(on! -onte1a+or! ,a%rador and 0ndencia! JJ.! concur.
aras! ).J.! concurs in the result.
+para0+ Opinion1
R!%!, J.#.L., J., dissenting;
After mature consideration I believe %e should affirm the 6udgement relieving the father of
liability. I can see no sound reason for limiting Art. #'3" of the old Civil Code to teachers of arts
and trades and not to academic ones. 9hat substantial difference is there bet%een them in so far
as, concerns the proper supervision and vigilance over their pupilsF It cannot be seriously
contended that an academic teacher is e7empt from the duty of %atching do not commit a tort to
the detriment of third persons, so long as they are in a position to e7ercise authority and
supervision over the pupil. In my opinion, in the phrase Ateachers or heads of establishments of
arts and tradesA used in Art. #'3" of the old Civil Code, the %ords Aarts and tradesA does not
/ualify AteachersA but only Aheads of establishmentsA. The phrase is only an updated version of
the e/uivalent terms Apreceptors y artesanosA used in the Italian and French Civil Codes.
If, as conceded by all commentators, the basis of the presumption of negligence of Art. #'3" in
some culpa in "i'ilando that the parents, teachers, etc. are supposed to have incurred in the
e7ercise of their authority, it %ould seem clear that %here the parent places the child under the
effective authority of the teacher, the latter, and not the parent, should be the one ans%erable for
the torts committed %hile under his custody, for the very reason that the parent is not supposed to
interfere %ith the discipline of the school nor %ith the authority and supervision of the teacher
%hile the child is under instruction. And if there is no authority, there can be no responsibility.
In the case before us, there is no /uestion that the pupil, =ante Capuno, %as instructed by the
City ?chool ?upervisor to attend the ,i-al parade. Cis father could not properly refuse to allo%
the child to attend, in defiance of the school authorities. The father had every reason to assume
that in ordering a minor to attend a parade %ith other children, the school authorities %ould
provide ade/uate supervision over them. If a teacher or scout master %as present, then he should
be the one responsible for allo%ing the minor to drive the 6eep %ithout being /ualified to do so.
.n the other hand, if no teacher or master %as at hand to %atch over the pupils, the school
authorities are the ones ans%erable for that negligence, and not the father.
At any rate, I submit that the father should not be held liable for a tort that he %as in no %ay able
to prevent, and %hich he had every right to assume the school authorities %ould avoid. Caving
proved that he trusted his child to the custody of school authorities that %ere competent to e7
ercise vigilance over him, the father has rebutted the presumption of Art. #'3" and the burden of
proof shifted to the claimant to sho% actual negligence on the part of the parent in order to render
him liable.
adilla and *e+es! A.! JJ.! concur.
G.R. No. L1681:1 Se=te)ber 3:, 197:
MARIA TERESA 0. UA*RA, )&nor re=re$ented b' 3er 2at3er ULISES P. UA*RA,
ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees,
vs.
AL#ONSO MON#ORT, defendant-appellant.
Rodolfo '. 2erman for plaintiffs-appellees.
*uis 0. $orres and .braham 8. $ion3o for defendant-appellant.
MA7ALINTAL, J.:
This is an action for dama'es based on quasi-delict, decided by the Court of +irst
,nstance of e'ros 4ccidental favorably to the plaintiffs and appealed by the defendant
to the Court of Appeals, *hich certified the same to us since the facts are not in issue.
2aria Teresa Cuadra, !., and 2aria Teresa 2onfort, !-, *ere classmates in Grade 3i;
at the 2abini 1lementary 3chool in 9acolod City. 4n %uly &, !&:. their teacher assi'ned
them, to'ether *ith three other classmates, to *eed the 'rass in the school premises.
@hile thus en'a'ed 2aria Teresa 2onfort found a plastic headband, an ornamental
ob)ect commonly *orn by youn' 'irls over their hair. %o8in'ly she said aloud that she
had found an earth*orm and, evidently to fri'hten the Cuadra 'irl, tossed the ob)ect at
her. At that precise moment the latter turned around to face her friend, and the ob)ect hit
her ri'ht eye. 3martin' from the pain, she rubbed the in)ured part and treated it *ith
some po*der. The ne;t day, %uly !$, the eye became s*ollen and it *as then that the
'irl related the incident to her parents, *ho thereupon too8 her to a doctor for treatment.
3he under*ent sur'ical operation t*ice, first on %uly .$ and a'ain on Au'ust 4, !&:.,
and stayed in the hospital for a total of t*enty-three days, for all of *hich the parents
spent the sum of 0!,"$-."5. 5espite the medical efforts, ho*ever, 2aria Teresa Cuadra
completely lost the si'ht of her ri'ht eye.
,n the civil suit subseBuently instituted by the parents in behalf of their minor dau'hter
a'ainst Alfonso 2onfort, 2aria Teresa 2onfort(s father, the defendant *as ordered to
pay 0!,"$-.$$ as actual dama'es< 0.$,$$$.$$ as moral dama'es< and 0.,$$$.$$ as
attorney(s fees, plus the costs of the suit.
The le'al issue posed in this appeal is the liability of a parent for an act of his minor
child *hich causes dama'e to another under the specific facts related above and the
applicable provisions of the Civil Code, particularly Articles .!": and .!#$ thereof,
*hich read/
ART. .!":. @hoever by act or omission causes dama'e to another, there bein'
fault or ne'li'ence, is obli'ed to pay for the dama'e done. 3uch fault or
ne'li'ence, if there is no pre-e;istin' contractual relation bet*een the parties, is
called a quasi-delict and is 'overned by provisions of this Chapter.
ART .!#$. The obli'ation imposed by Article .!": is demandable not only for
one(s o*n acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for *hom one is
responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity are responsible for the
dama'es caused by the minor children *ho live in their company.
;;; ;;; ;;;
The responsibility treated of in this Article shall cease *hen the persons herein
mentioned prove that they observed all the dili'ence of a 'ood father of a family
to prevent dama'e.
The underlyin' basis of the liability imposed by Article .!": is the fault or ne'li'ence
accompanyin' the act or the omission, there bein' no *illfulness or intent to cause
dama'e thereby. @hen the act or omission is that of one person for *hom another is
responsible, the latter then becomes himself liable under Article .!#$, in the different
cases enumerated therein, such as that of the father or the mother under the
circumstances above Buoted. The basis of this vicarious, althou'h primary, liability is, as
in Article .!":, fault or ne'li'ence, *hich is presumed from that *hich accompanied the
causative act or omission. The presumption is merely prima facie and may therefore be
rebutted. This is the clear and lo'ical inference that may be dra*n from the last
para'raph of Article .!#$, *hich states >that the responsibility treated of in this Article
shall cease *hen the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the
dili'ence of a 'ood father of a family to prevent dama'e.>
3ince the fact thus reBuired to be proven is a matter of defense, the burden of proof
necessarily rests on the defendant. 9ut *hat is the e;act de'ree of dili'ence
contemplated, and ho* does a parent prove it in connection *ith a particular act or
omission of a minor child, especially *hen it ta8es place in his absence or outside his
immediate companyL 4bviously there can be no meticulously calibrated measure
applicable< and *hen the la* simply refers to >all the dili'ence of a 'ood father of the
family to prevent dama'e,> it implies a consideration of the attendant circumstances in
every individual case, to determine *hether or not by the e;ercise of such dili'ence the
dama'e could have been prevented.
,n the present case there is nothin' from *hich it may be inferred that the defendant
could have prevented the dama'e by the observance of due care, or that he *as in any
*ay remiss in the e;ercise of his parental authority in failin' to foresee such dama'e, or
the act *hich caused it. 4n the contrary, his child *as at school, *here it *as his duty to
send her and *here she *as, as he had the ri'ht to e;pect her to be, under the care
and supervision of the teacher. And as far as the act *hich caused the in)ury *as
concerned, it *as an innocent pran8 not unusual amon' children at play and *hich no
parent, ho*ever careful, *ould have any special reason to anticipate much less 'uard
a'ainst. or did it reveal any mischievous propensity, or indeed any trait in the child(s
character *hich *ould reflect unfavorably on her upbrin'in' and for *hich the blame
could be attributed to her parents.
The victim, no doubt, deserves no little commiseration and sympathy for the tra'edy
that befell her. 9ut if the defendant is at all obli'ated to compensate her sufferin', the
obli'ation has no le'al sanction enforceable in court, but only the moral compulsion of
'ood conscience.
The decision appealed from is reversed, and the complaint is dismissed, *ithout
pronouncement as to costs.
Reyes '.B.*. .ct". C.'. (i)on 9aldivar Castro $eehan3ee 5illamor and 7a3asiar
''. concur.
Concepcion C.'. is on leave.
Fernando '. too3 no part.
Se=arate O=&n&on$
"ARRE*O, J., dissentin'/
, am afraid , cannot 'o alon' *ith my esteemed
collea'ues in holdin' that the act of appellant(s dau'hter
does not constitute fault *ithin the contemplation of our
la* or torts. 3he *as !- years and should have 8no*n
that by )o8in'ly sayin' >aloud that she had found an
earth*orm and, evidently to fri'hten the Cuadra 'irl,
tossed the ob)ect at her,> it *as li8ely that somethin'
*ould happen to her friend, as in fact, she *as hurt.
As to the liability of appellant as father, , prefer to hold that
there bein' no evidence that he had properly advised his
dau'hter to behave properly and not to play dan'erous
)o8es on her classmate and playmates, he can be liable
under Article .!#$ of the Civil Code. There is nothin' in
the record to sho* that he had done anythin' at all to
even try to minimi=e the dama'e caused upon plaintiff
child.
> Se=arate O=&n&on$
"ARRE*O, J., dissentin'/
, am afraid , cannot 'o alon' *ith my esteemed collea'ues in holdin' that the act of appellant(s dau'hter does not
constitute fault *ithin the contemplation of our la* or torts. 3he *as !- years and should have 8no*n that by )o8in'ly
sayin' >aloud that she had found an earth*orm and, evidently to fri'hten the Cuadra 'irl, tossed the ob)ect at her,> it
*as li8ely that somethin' *ould happen to her friend, as in fact, she *as hurt.
As to the liability of appellant as father, , prefer to hold that there bein' no evidence that he had properly advised his
dau'hter to behave properly and not to play dan'erous )o8es on her classmate and playmates, he can be liable
under Article .!#$ of the Civil Code. There is nothin' in the record to sho* that he had done anythin' at all to even
try to minimi=e the dama'e caused upon plaintiff child.