Estacion vs. Bernardo| Austria-Martinez G.R. No.

144723, February 27, 2006 | 483 SCRA 222

FACTS October 16, 1982, afternoon, Respondent Noe was going home to Dumaguete from Cebu. He boarded a Ford Fiera jeepney driven by
Geminiano Quinquillera (Quinquillera) and owned by Cecilia Bandoquillo (Bandoquillo). He was seated on the extension seat at the center of the
fiera. From San Jose, an old woman wanted to ride so Noe offered his seat and hung/stood on the left rear carrier of the vehicle (sumabit) The
fiera slowed down and stopped to pick up more passengers. Suddenly, an Isuzu cargo truck owned by petitioner Estacion and driven by Gerosano,
which was travelling in the same direction, hit the rear portion of the jeepney. The fiera crushed Noes legs and feet, he was brought to Siliman Univ
Med Center where his lower left leg was amputated. Police report showed that there were 10 more who were injured by the accident. Feb 18,
1993, Now and his guardian ad litem Arlie Bernardo filed w the RTC of Dumaguete a complaint for damages arising from quasi-delict against
petitioner as owner of the truck and his driver. RTC ruled that Gerosano was negligent and it was the direct and proximate cause of the incident. It
also held petitioner liable as employer. CA affirmed in toto the RTC.
ISSUES & ARGUMENTS W/N Petitioner is liable? W/N Noe was guilty of contributory negligence?
HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI YES. From the way the truck reacted to the application of the brakes, it can be shown that Gerosano was driving
at a fast speed because the brakes skidded a lengthy 48 feet as shown in he sketch of the police. There was also only one tire mark which meant
that the brakes of the truck were not aligned properly, otherwise, there would have been 2 tire marks. It is the negligent act of petitioners driver of
driving the cargo truck at a fast speed coupled with faulty brakes which was the proximate cause of respondent Noes injury. As employer of
Gerosano, petitioner is primarily and solidarily liable for the quasidelict committed by the former. He is presumed to be negligent in the selection of
his employee which petitioner failed to overcome. He failed to show that he examined driver Gerosano as to his qualifications, experience and
records.
YES. NOE IS GUILTY OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE BY STANDING AT THE REAR PORTION OF THE JEEP. Contributory Negligence is
conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is
required to conform for his own protection. Noes act of standing on the left rear portion showed his lack of ordinary care and foresight that such act
could cause him harm or put his life in danger. To hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it must be shown that he performed an act that
brought about his injuries in disregard of warning or signs of an impending danger to health and body. Quinquillera (jeepney driver) was also
negligent because there was overloading which is in violation of traffic rules and regulations. He also allowed Noe to stand on the left rear of his jeep.
There is also a presumption of negligence on the part of the owner of the jeep, Bandoquillo, which she did not rebut. 20-80 ratio distribution of
damages.