Tiu vs Arriesgado

September 1, 2004
Facts:
On March 15, 1987, a Truck marked Condor Hollow Blocks and
General Merchandise was on its way to Cebu when its rear tire
exploded. The driver Sergio Pedrano then parked the truck on the side
of the National Highway, left the rear lights on, and instructed his
helper, Jose Mitante, to watch over the truck and place a spare tire on
the road a few meters away from the tire to serve as a warning device
as he went and had the faulty tire vulcanized.
After Pedrano left, D Rough Riders passenger bus carrying the
respondent, passed by the same route and hit the truck. The petitioner
was injured in the collision and his wife, Felissa Arriesgado eventually
died after sustaining injuries from the same. Hence, he filed a
complaint against the petitioner for breach of contract of carriage,
damages and for attorneys fees against the petitioner, the owner of
the bus, William Tiu and his driver, Laspinas.
However, the petitioner filed a third-party complaint alleging that
the said truck was parked in a slanted manner and did not have any
early warning devices displayed while it was left by the driver which
resulted to the collision and would therefore make, Benjamin Condor,
the owner of the truck liable as well.
Also, the petitioner included that he was covered by Philippine
Phoenix Surety and Insurance (PPSI) at the time of the incident which
would therefore make the same liable for part of the damages that
may arise as well.
PPSI, however argued that it already attended to and settled
claims of those who were injured in the collision and that it could not
accede to the claim of Arriesgado because it was beyond that of the
terms of the insurance.
The trial court found that the contention of the petitioner was
invalid because the said truck had left its tail lights open and that the
said road was well lit at the time of the accident. Hence, it was the
fault of the bus, for traveling at a fast pace, that the collision
happened. The Petitioner, Tiu, appealed to the CA but was denied
which prompted him to seek another reconsideration.
Issue:
W/N The owner and driver of the Truck, Benjamin Condor and
Sergio Pedrano, was liable due to their negligence in the lack of an
early warning device and hence liable to the respondent as well.
(Violation of Sec 34 of LTO Land traffic code.)
W/N Petitioner was negligent
W/N Petitioner was also liable for exemplary damages, attorneys
fees and litigation expenses.

W/N PPSI is also liable.

Held:
The court found that indeed, the petitioner, was liable for being
negligent while being engaged in the business of common carriage.
The SC could no longer change the facts that were sustained in the
trial court and court of appeals hence, since it was deemed that the
bus was moving in a very fast speed which was the cause of the
accident, the SC will have to sustain that ruling and hold that indeed,
there was negligence on the part of the petitioner.
Also, the doctrine of Last Clear Chance is inapplicable to the
case because it could only apply to a controversy between two
colliding vehicles. In this case, it was the passenger and not another
driver who was injured and thus, the said doctrine could not be
applied.
However, the respondents Pedrano and Condor was found by the
court to be negligent as well. The court found that there was merit in
the contention of the petitioner that the said truck violated Section 34
or RA 4136, wherein they did not have proper warning devices in
accordance with the said law.
Lastly, with regard to PPSI, the court held that since it admitted
to being bound by a contract with the petitioner, it would be liable as
well. However, the said liability would only fall within the amount
settled in the said contract.
Hence, the petition was partially granted.