PLDT v CA [G.R. No. 57079. September 29, 1989.] PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO., INC. petitioner, vs. COURT
OF APPEALS and SPOUSES ANTONIO ESTEBAN and GLORIA ESTEBAN, respondents.
FACTS:
An action for damages was instituted in the former Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental 1 by private respondent spouses against petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT, for brevity) for the injuries they sustained in the evening of July 30, 1968 when their jeep ran over a mound of earth and fell into an open trench, an excavation allegedly undertaken by PLDT for the installation of its underground conduit system. The complaint alleged that respondent Antonio Esteban failed to notice the open trench which was left uncovered because of the creeping darkness and the lack of any warning light or signs. As a result of the accident, respondent Gloria Esteban allegedly sustained injuries on her arms, legs and face, leaving a permanent scar on her cheek, while the respondent husband suffered cut lips. In addition, the windshield of the jeep was shattered.
Defenses (PLDT):
1. injuries sustained by respondent spouses were the result of their own negligence and that the entity which should be held responsible
2. if at all, is L.R. Barte and Company (Barte, for short), an independent contractor which undertook the construction of the manhole and the conduit system
Defenses (Barte):
1. it was not aware nor was it notified of the accident involving respondent spouses and that it had complied with the terms of its contract with PLDT by installing the necessary and appropriate standard signs in the vicinity of the work site, with barricades at both ends of the excavation and with red lights at night along the excavated area to warn the traveling public of the presence of excavations.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
1. Trial Court: defendant Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company is hereby ordered (A) to pay the plaintiff Gloria Esteban
2. CA: reversing the decision of the lower court and dismissing the complaint of respondent spouses. It held that respondent Esteban spouses were negligent and consequently absolved petitioner PLDT from the claim for damages.
ISSUE:
Whether PLDT is liable
RULING:
No.
First. Plaintiff's jeep was running along the inside lane of Lacson Street. If it had remained on that inside lane, it would not have hit the ACCIDENT MOUND. Exhibit B shows, through the tiremarks, that the ACCIDENT MOUND was hit by the jeep swerving from the left that is, swerving from the inside lane. What caused the swerving is not disclosed; but, as the cause of the accident, defendant cannot be made liable for the damages suffered by plaintiffs. The accident was not due to the absence of warning signs, but to the unexplained abrupt swerving of the jeep from the inside lane.
The negligence of respondent Antonio Esteban was not only contributory to his injuries and those of his wife but goes to the very cause of the occurrence of the accident, as one of its determining factors, and thereby precludes their right to recover damages. 30 The perils of the road were known to, hence appreciated and assumed by, private respondents. By exercising reasonable care and prudence, respondent Antonio Esteban could have avoided the injurious consequences of his act, even assuming arguendo that there was some alleged negligence on the part of petitioner.
It was not the lack of knowledge of these excavations which caused the jeep of respondents to fall into the excavation but the unexplained sudden swerving of the jeep from the inside lane towards the accident mound.
DAMAGES; A PARTY CANNOT CHARGE ANOTHER FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY HIS OWN NEGLIGENCE. — It is basic that private respondents cannot charge PLDT for their injuries where their own failure to exercise due and reasonable care was the cause thereof. It is both a societal norm and necessity that one should exercise a reasonable degree of caution for his own protection. Furthermore, respondent Antonio Esteban had the last clear chance or opportunity to avoid the accident, notwithstanding the negligence he imputes to petitioner PLDT. As a resident of Lacson Street, he passed on that street almost everyday and had knowledge of the presence and location of the excavations there. It was his negligence that exposed him and his wife to danger, hence he is solely responsible for the consequences of his imprudence.
FACTS:
An action for damages was instituted in the former Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental 1 by private respondent spouses against petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT, for brevity) for the injuries they sustained in the evening of July 30, 1968 when their jeep ran over a mound of earth and fell into an open trench, an excavation allegedly undertaken by PLDT for the installation of its underground conduit system. The complaint alleged that respondent Antonio Esteban failed to notice the open trench which was left uncovered because of the creeping darkness and the lack of any warning light or signs. As a result of the accident, respondent Gloria Esteban allegedly sustained injuries on her arms, legs and face, leaving a permanent scar on her cheek, while the respondent husband suffered cut lips. In addition, the windshield of the jeep was shattered.
Defenses (PLDT):
1. injuries sustained by respondent spouses were the result of their own negligence and that the entity which should be held responsible
2. if at all, is L.R. Barte and Company (Barte, for short), an independent contractor which undertook the construction of the manhole and the conduit system
Defenses (Barte):
1. it was not aware nor was it notified of the accident involving respondent spouses and that it had complied with the terms of its contract with PLDT by installing the necessary and appropriate standard signs in the vicinity of the work site, with barricades at both ends of the excavation and with red lights at night along the excavated area to warn the traveling public of the presence of excavations.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
1. Trial Court: defendant Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company is hereby ordered (A) to pay the plaintiff Gloria Esteban
2. CA: reversing the decision of the lower court and dismissing the complaint of respondent spouses. It held that respondent Esteban spouses were negligent and consequently absolved petitioner PLDT from the claim for damages.
ISSUE:
Whether PLDT is liable
RULING:
No.
First. Plaintiff's jeep was running along the inside lane of Lacson Street. If it had remained on that inside lane, it would not have hit the ACCIDENT MOUND. Exhibit B shows, through the tiremarks, that the ACCIDENT MOUND was hit by the jeep swerving from the left that is, swerving from the inside lane. What caused the swerving is not disclosed; but, as the cause of the accident, defendant cannot be made liable for the damages suffered by plaintiffs. The accident was not due to the absence of warning signs, but to the unexplained abrupt swerving of the jeep from the inside lane.
The negligence of respondent Antonio Esteban was not only contributory to his injuries and those of his wife but goes to the very cause of the occurrence of the accident, as one of its determining factors, and thereby precludes their right to recover damages. 30 The perils of the road were known to, hence appreciated and assumed by, private respondents. By exercising reasonable care and prudence, respondent Antonio Esteban could have avoided the injurious consequences of his act, even assuming arguendo that there was some alleged negligence on the part of petitioner.
It was not the lack of knowledge of these excavations which caused the jeep of respondents to fall into the excavation but the unexplained sudden swerving of the jeep from the inside lane towards the accident mound.
DAMAGES; A PARTY CANNOT CHARGE ANOTHER FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY HIS OWN NEGLIGENCE. — It is basic that private respondents cannot charge PLDT for their injuries where their own failure to exercise due and reasonable care was the cause thereof. It is both a societal norm and necessity that one should exercise a reasonable degree of caution for his own protection. Furthermore, respondent Antonio Esteban had the last clear chance or opportunity to avoid the accident, notwithstanding the negligence he imputes to petitioner PLDT. As a resident of Lacson Street, he passed on that street almost everyday and had knowledge of the presence and location of the excavations there. It was his negligence that exposed him and his wife to danger, hence he is solely responsible for the consequences of his imprudence.
A person claiming damages for the negligence of another has the burden of proving the existence of such fault or negligence causative
thereof. The facts constitutive of negligence must be affirmatively established by competent evidence. Whosoever relies on negligence for his cause of action has the burden in the first instance of proving the existence of the same if contested, otherwise his action must
fail.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment