ESTACION v BERNARDO [G.R. No. 144723. February 27, 2006.] LARRY ESTACION, petitioner, vs. NOE BERNARDO, thru and his
guardian ad litem ARLIE BERNARDO, CECILIA BANDOQUILLO and GEMINIANO QUINQUILLERA, respondents.
FACTS:
In the afternoon of October 16, 1982, respondent Noe was going home to Dumaguete from Cebu, via Bato and Tampi. At Tampi, he boarded a Ford Fiera passenger jeepney with plate no. NLD 720 driven by respondent Geminiano Quinquillera (Quinquillera), owned by respondent Cecilia Bandoquillo (Bandoquillo), and was seated on the extension seat placed at the center of the Fiera. From San Jose, an old woman wanted to ride, so respondent Noe offered his seat. Since the Fiera was already full, respondent Noe hung or stood on the left rear carrier of the vehicle. Somewhere along Barangay Sto. Niño, San Jose, Negros Oriental, between kilometers 13 and 14, the Fiera began to slow down and then stopped by the right shoulder of the road to pick up passengers. Suddenly, an Isuzu cargo truck, owned by petitioner and driven by Gerosano, which was traveling in the same direction, hit the rear end portion of the Fiera where respondent Noe was standing. Due to the tremendous force, the cargo truck smashed respondent Noe against the Fiera crushing his legs and feet which made him fall to the ground. A passing vehicle brought him to the Silliman University Medical Center where his lower left leg was amputated.
respondent Noe, through his guardian ad litem Arlie Bernardo, filed with the RTC of Dumaguete City a complaint 3 for damages arising from quasi delict against petitioner as the registered owner of the cargo truck and his driver Gerosano.
Defenses:
reckless imprudence of respondent driver Quinquillera and his clear violation of the traffic rules and regulations which was the proximate cause of the accident and asked for indemnification for whatever damages they would be sentenced to pay
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) RTC: ordering defendants Gerosano and Estacion, to pay plaintiff, jointly or solidarily (2) CA: affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court
ISSUE:
Whether the owner of the cargo truck is liable
RULING:
Yes.
Both the cargo truck and jeepney are liable to Bernardo subject to mitigation due to contributory negligence of Bernardo "unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation"; that since the Fiera driver was negligent, there arises a presumption that respondent Bandoquillo, as owner of the Fiera, is negligent in the selection and supervision of her employee; that assuming petitioner Estacion and his driver are not entirely blameless, the negligence of Quinquillera is sufficient basis why the respective liabilities should be delineated vis-à- vis their degree of negligence consistent with Article 2179 of the Civil Code.
FACTS:
In the afternoon of October 16, 1982, respondent Noe was going home to Dumaguete from Cebu, via Bato and Tampi. At Tampi, he boarded a Ford Fiera passenger jeepney with plate no. NLD 720 driven by respondent Geminiano Quinquillera (Quinquillera), owned by respondent Cecilia Bandoquillo (Bandoquillo), and was seated on the extension seat placed at the center of the Fiera. From San Jose, an old woman wanted to ride, so respondent Noe offered his seat. Since the Fiera was already full, respondent Noe hung or stood on the left rear carrier of the vehicle. Somewhere along Barangay Sto. Niño, San Jose, Negros Oriental, between kilometers 13 and 14, the Fiera began to slow down and then stopped by the right shoulder of the road to pick up passengers. Suddenly, an Isuzu cargo truck, owned by petitioner and driven by Gerosano, which was traveling in the same direction, hit the rear end portion of the Fiera where respondent Noe was standing. Due to the tremendous force, the cargo truck smashed respondent Noe against the Fiera crushing his legs and feet which made him fall to the ground. A passing vehicle brought him to the Silliman University Medical Center where his lower left leg was amputated.
respondent Noe, through his guardian ad litem Arlie Bernardo, filed with the RTC of Dumaguete City a complaint 3 for damages arising from quasi delict against petitioner as the registered owner of the cargo truck and his driver Gerosano.
Defenses:
reckless imprudence of respondent driver Quinquillera and his clear violation of the traffic rules and regulations which was the proximate cause of the accident and asked for indemnification for whatever damages they would be sentenced to pay
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) RTC: ordering defendants Gerosano and Estacion, to pay plaintiff, jointly or solidarily (2) CA: affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court
ISSUE:
Whether the owner of the cargo truck is liable
RULING:
Yes.
Both the cargo truck and jeepney are liable to Bernardo subject to mitigation due to contributory negligence of Bernardo "unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation"; that since the Fiera driver was negligent, there arises a presumption that respondent Bandoquillo, as owner of the Fiera, is negligent in the selection and supervision of her employee; that assuming petitioner Estacion and his driver are not entirely blameless, the negligence of Quinquillera is sufficient basis why the respective liabilities should be delineated vis-à- vis their degree of negligence consistent with Article 2179 of the Civil Code.
Respondent Noe's act of standing on the left rear carrier portion of the Fiera showed his lack of ordinary care and foresight that such
act could cause him harm or put his life in danger. It has been held that "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. 24 Respondent Noe's act of hanging on the Fiera is definitely dangerous to his life and limb.
Respondent Quinquillera's act of permitting respondent Noe to hang on the rear portion of the Fiera in such a dangerous position creates undue risk of harm to respondent Noe. Quinquillera failed to observe that degree of care, precaution and vigilance that the circumstances justly demand
In the present case, taking into account the contributing negligence of respondent Noe, we likewise rule that the demands of substantial justice are satisfied by distributing the damages also on a 20-80 ratio excluding attorney's fees and litigation expenses.
CIVIL LAW; QUASI-DELICTS; DRIVING THE CARGO TRUCK AT A FAST SPEED COUPLED WITH FAULTY BRAKES IS THE NEGLIGENT ACT OF THE DRIVER. — The accident was further caused by the faulty brakes of the truck. Based on the sketch report, there was only one tire mark of the right tire of the cargo truck during the incident which, as testified to by the police investigator Rubia, meant that the brakes of the truck were not aligned otherwise there would be two tire marks impressions on the road. Although petitioner contends that there are other factors to explain why only one skid mark was found at the place of the incident, such as the angle and edges of the road as well as the balance of the weight of the cargo laden in the truck, he failed to show that indeed those factors were present to prove his defense. Such claim cannot be given credence considering that investigator Rubia testified that the body of the truck was very much on the road, i.e., not over the shoulder of the road, and the road was straight. Indeed, it is the negligent act of petitioner's driver of driving the cargo truck at a fast speed coupled with faulty brakes which was the proximate cause of respondent Noe's injury.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE; PASSENGER'S ACT OF STANDING ON THE REAR CARRIER OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE EXPOSING HIMSELF TO BODILY INJURY. — However, we agree with petitioner that respondent Noe's act of standing on the rear carrier of the Fiera exposing himself to bodily injury is in itself negligence on his part. We find that the trial court and the CA erred when they failed to consider that respondent Noe was also guilty of contributory negligence. Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of
Respondent Quinquillera's act of permitting respondent Noe to hang on the rear portion of the Fiera in such a dangerous position creates undue risk of harm to respondent Noe. Quinquillera failed to observe that degree of care, precaution and vigilance that the circumstances justly demand
In the present case, taking into account the contributing negligence of respondent Noe, we likewise rule that the demands of substantial justice are satisfied by distributing the damages also on a 20-80 ratio excluding attorney's fees and litigation expenses.
CIVIL LAW; QUASI-DELICTS; DRIVING THE CARGO TRUCK AT A FAST SPEED COUPLED WITH FAULTY BRAKES IS THE NEGLIGENT ACT OF THE DRIVER. — The accident was further caused by the faulty brakes of the truck. Based on the sketch report, there was only one tire mark of the right tire of the cargo truck during the incident which, as testified to by the police investigator Rubia, meant that the brakes of the truck were not aligned otherwise there would be two tire marks impressions on the road. Although petitioner contends that there are other factors to explain why only one skid mark was found at the place of the incident, such as the angle and edges of the road as well as the balance of the weight of the cargo laden in the truck, he failed to show that indeed those factors were present to prove his defense. Such claim cannot be given credence considering that investigator Rubia testified that the body of the truck was very much on the road, i.e., not over the shoulder of the road, and the road was straight. Indeed, it is the negligent act of petitioner's driver of driving the cargo truck at a fast speed coupled with faulty brakes which was the proximate cause of respondent Noe's injury.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE; PASSENGER'S ACT OF STANDING ON THE REAR CARRIER OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE EXPOSING HIMSELF TO BODILY INJURY. — However, we agree with petitioner that respondent Noe's act of standing on the rear carrier of the Fiera exposing himself to bodily injury is in itself negligence on his part. We find that the trial court and the CA erred when they failed to consider that respondent Noe was also guilty of contributory negligence. 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. It has been established by the testimony of respondent Noe that he was with four or five other persons
standing on the rear carrier of the Fiera since it was already full. Respondent Noe's act of standing on the left rear carrier portion of the
Fiera showed his lack of ordinary care and foresight that such act could cause him harm or put his life in danger. It has been held that
"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. Respondent Noe's act of hanging on the Fiera is definitely
dangerous to his life and limb.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment