McKee v.

Intermediate Appellate Court FACTS: It was the 8th of January in 1977, at around 9:00 or
10:00 in the morning, somewhere between Angeles City and San Fernando, Pampanga. Jose Koh was
driving his daughter, Araceli Koh McKee, and her minor children, Christopher, George, and Kim, as well
as Kim’s babysitter, Loida Bondoc, from San Fernando, Pampanga in the direction of Angeles City
(northward) in a Ford Escort. Meanwhile, a cargo truck owned by Jaime Tayag and Rosalinda Manalo,
driven by Ruben Galang, was headed in the opposite direction, from Angeles City to San Fernando
(southward), going to Manila. The cargo truck was considerable in size as it was carrying 200 hundred
cavans of rice, which weighed 10 metric tons. As the Escort approached one Pulong-Pulo Bridge from
the southern portion, 2 boys suddenly ran from the right side of the road into the Escort’s lane. As the
boys were going back and forth, unsure of whether to cross all the way or turn back, Jose blew his horn.
He was then forced to swerve left and into the lane Galang was driving in. Jose switched his headlights
on, applied his brakes, and attempted to return to his lane. However, he failed to get back into the right
lane, and collided with the cargo truck. The collision occurred on the bridge. The collision resulted in the
deaths of the driver, Jose, the one-year-old, Kim, and her babysitter, Loida, on whose lap she was sitting.
Loida was seated in the passenger seat. Araceli, Christopher, and George, who were sitting in the back of
the Escort, received physical injuries from the collision. An information was filed against Ruben Galang,
charging him for reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide, physical injuries, and damage to
property. He was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges in the information. The
conviction was affirmed by the CA and achieved finality after the denial by the CA of his MR and the
denial by the SC of his Petition for Review. Two civil cases were filed. The first one, by the wife and
children of Jose Koh, and the second one by Araceli and her husband for the death of Kim and
injuries to Araceli and her other children. The respondents were impleaded against as the
employers of Ruben Galang – Galang was not included. The cases here are based on quasi-delict.
These cases were eventually consolidated. The trial court dismissed the civil cases and awarded the
respondents damages and attorney’s fees. On appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court, the
dismissal was reversed. This was based on its finding that it was Galang’s inattentiveness or
reckless imprudence that caused the accident. However, upon filing by the respondents of an MR, the
IAC set aside its original decision and upheld that of the trial court because the fact that Koh’s car
invaded the lane of the truck and the collision occurred while still in Galang’s lane gave rise to the
presumption that Koh was negligent. ISSUE: Was the IAC correct in reversing their original decision?
HELD: NO. The petition has merit. Procedural (not important): Given the circumstances, the cases (civil
and criminal) should have been consolidated to prevent separate appreciation of the evidence. To be
fair, the petitioners did move to adopt the testimonies of the witnesses in the criminal case but the
motion was denied. The non-consolidation resulted in two conflicting decisions. In any case, the guilty
verdict of Galang was deemed by the Court as irrelevant to the case at bar. On the basis of this
presumed negligence, the appellate court immediately concluded that it was Jose Koh’s negligence that
was the immediate and proximate cause of the collision. This is an unwarranted deduction as the
evidence for the petitioners convincingly shows that the car swerved into the truck’s lane because as it
approached the southern end of the bridge, two boys darted across the road from the right sidewalk
into the lane of the car. Araceli’s testimony was pretty much what was stated in the facts plus the fact
that when Jose swerved to the left, the truck was immediately noticed. This is why he switched his
headlights on – to warn the truck’s driver to slow down and let the Escort return to its lane. When asked
as to how she could tell that the truck did not slow down, Araceli said that the truck just kept on coming,
indicating that it didn’t reduce its speed. She posited that if it did, there wouldn’t have been a collision.
Her testimony remained intact, even upon cross-examination – that Jose’s entry into Galang’s lane was
necessary to avoid what was, in his mind at the time, a greater peril – death or injury to the two idiots.
This is hardly negligent behavior. Her testimony was corroborated by one Eugenio Tanhueco1, who was
an impartial eyewitness. He said that the truck, moving at 50 to 60kph, only stopped upon collision.
Also, when the police investigated the scene of the collision, they found skidmarks under the truck
instead of behind it. This indicated that Galang only applied the brakes moments before the collision.
While Galang claimed that he had stopped when the Escort was within 10 meters of the truck but this
only served to substantiate Tanhueco’s statement that he stopped only upon collision, considering the
speed at which he was going2