RAYNERA V HICETA [G.R. No. 120027. April 21, 1999.] EDNA A. RAYNERA, for herself and on behalf of the minors RIANNA and
REIANNE RAYNERA, petitioners, vs. FREDDIE HICETA and JIMMY ORPILLA, respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioners herein are heirs of Reynaldo Raynera who was killed by an accident on his way home at about 2:00 A.M. Respondents, Freddie Hiceta and Jimmy Orpilla were owner and driver, respectively, of an Isuzu truck trailer which was involved in the said accident. On March 23, 1989, at about 2:00 in the morning, Reynaldo Raynera was on his way home. He was riding a motorcycle traveling on the southbound lane of East Service Road, Cupang, Muntinlupa. The Isuzu truck was travelling ahead of him at 20 to 30 kilometers per hour. 4 The truck was loaded with two (2) metal sheets extended on both sides, two (2) feet on the left and three (3) feet on the right. There were two (2) pairs of red lights, about 35 watts each, on both sides of the metal plates. 5 The asphalt road was not well lighted. At some point on the road, Reynaldo Raynera crashed his motorcycle into the left rear portion of the truck trailer, which was without tail lights. Due to the collision, Reynaldo sustained head injuries and truck helper Geraldino D. Lucelo 6 rushed him to the Parañaque Medical Center. Upon arrival at the hospital, the attending physician, Dr. Marivic Aguirre, 7 pronounced Reynaldo Raynera dead on arrival.
At time of his death, Reynaldo was manager of the Engineering Department, Kawasaki Motors (Phils.) Corporation. The heirs of the deceased demanded from respondents' payment of damages arising from the death of Reynaldo as a result of the vehicular accident. The respondents refused to pay the claims. Petitioners, hence, filed with the Regional Trial Court, Manila a complaint for damages against respondents' owner and driver of the Isuzu truck. Petitioners sought recovery of the damages caused by the negligent operation of the truck- trailer at nighttime on the highway, without tail the lights.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) Trial Court: rendered a decision in favor of petitioners. The trial court held that respondents' negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of the victim's death. The trial court also applied the doctrine of contributory negligence and reduced the responsibility of respondents by 20%.
(2) Court of Appeals: held that the victim's bumping into the left rear portion of the truck was the proximate cause of his death, and consequently, absolved respondents from liability.
ISSUE:
Whether the truck is responsible for the accident
RULING: No.
Despite the absence of tail lights and license plate, respondents' truck was visible in the highway. It was traveling at a moderate speed, approximately 20 to 30 kilometers per hour. It used the service road, instead of the highway, because the cargo they were hauling posed a danger to passing motorists. In compliance with the Land Transportation Traffic Code (Republic Act No. 4136)" 25 respondents installed 2 pairs of lights on top of the steel plates, as the vehicle's cargo load extended beyond the bed or body thereof.
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE; THE DRIVERS OF THE VEHICLES "WHO BUMP THE REAR OF ANOTHER VEHICLE" ARE PRESUMED TO BE THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, UNLESS CONTRADICTED BY OTHER EVIDENCE; CASE AT BAR. — It has been said that drivers of vehicles "who bump the rear of another vehicle" are presumed to be "the cause of the accident, unless contradicted by other evidence." The rationale behind the presumption is that the driver of the rear vehicle has full control of the situation as he is in a position to observe the vehicle in front of him. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the responsibility to avoid the collision with the front vehicle lies with the driver of the rear vehicle. Consequently, no other person was to blame but the victim himself since he was the one who bumped his motorcycle into the rear of the Isuzu truck. He had the last clear chance of avoiding the accident.
He was traversing the service road where the prescribed speed limit was less than that in the highway.
FACTS:
Petitioners herein are heirs of Reynaldo Raynera who was killed by an accident on his way home at about 2:00 A.M. Respondents, Freddie Hiceta and Jimmy Orpilla were owner and driver, respectively, of an Isuzu truck trailer which was involved in the said accident. On March 23, 1989, at about 2:00 in the morning, Reynaldo Raynera was on his way home. He was riding a motorcycle traveling on the southbound lane of East Service Road, Cupang, Muntinlupa. The Isuzu truck was travelling ahead of him at 20 to 30 kilometers per hour. 4 The truck was loaded with two (2) metal sheets extended on both sides, two (2) feet on the left and three (3) feet on the right. There were two (2) pairs of red lights, about 35 watts each, on both sides of the metal plates. 5 The asphalt road was not well lighted. At some point on the road, Reynaldo Raynera crashed his motorcycle into the left rear portion of the truck trailer, which was without tail lights. Due to the collision, Reynaldo sustained head injuries and truck helper Geraldino D. Lucelo 6 rushed him to the Parañaque Medical Center. Upon arrival at the hospital, the attending physician, Dr. Marivic Aguirre, 7 pronounced Reynaldo Raynera dead on arrival.
At time of his death, Reynaldo was manager of the Engineering Department, Kawasaki Motors (Phils.) Corporation. The heirs of the deceased demanded from respondents' payment of damages arising from the death of Reynaldo as a result of the vehicular accident. The respondents refused to pay the claims. Petitioners, hence, filed with the Regional Trial Court, Manila a complaint for damages against respondents' owner and driver of the Isuzu truck. Petitioners sought recovery of the damages caused by the negligent operation of the truck- trailer at nighttime on the highway, without tail the lights.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) Trial Court: rendered a decision in favor of petitioners. The trial court held that respondents' negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of the victim's death. The trial court also applied the doctrine of contributory negligence and reduced the responsibility of respondents by 20%.
(2) Court of Appeals: held that the victim's bumping into the left rear portion of the truck was the proximate cause of his death, and consequently, absolved respondents from liability.
ISSUE:
Whether the truck is responsible for the accident
RULING: No.
Despite the absence of tail lights and license plate, respondents' truck was visible in the highway. It was traveling at a moderate speed, approximately 20 to 30 kilometers per hour. It used the service road, instead of the highway, because the cargo they were hauling posed a danger to passing motorists. In compliance with the Land Transportation Traffic Code (Republic Act No. 4136)" 25 respondents installed 2 pairs of lights on top of the steel plates, as the vehicle's cargo load extended beyond the bed or body thereof.
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE; THE DRIVERS OF THE VEHICLES "WHO BUMP THE REAR OF ANOTHER VEHICLE" ARE PRESUMED TO BE THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, UNLESS CONTRADICTED BY OTHER EVIDENCE; CASE AT BAR. — It has been said that drivers of vehicles "who bump the rear of another vehicle" are presumed to be "the cause of the accident, unless contradicted by other evidence." The rationale behind the presumption is that the driver of the rear vehicle has full control of the situation as he is in a position to observe the vehicle in front of him. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the responsibility to avoid the collision with the front vehicle lies with the driver of the rear vehicle. Consequently, no other person was to blame but the victim himself since he was the one who bumped his motorcycle into the rear of the Isuzu truck. He had the last clear chance of avoiding the accident.
He was traversing the service road where the prescribed speed limit was less than that in the highway.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment