Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 166640 July 31, 2009
HERMINIO MARIANO, JR., Petitioner,
vs.
ILDEONSO C. CALLEJAS !"# EDGAR DE $ORJA, Respondents.
D ! I S I O N
PUNO, C.J.:
On appeal are the Decision
"
and Resolution
#
of the !ourt of $ppeals in !$%&.R. !V
No. ''()", dated Ma* #", #++, and -anuar* ., #++/ respectivel*, 0hich reversed
the Decision
1
of the Re2ional Trial !ourt 3RT!4 of 5ue6on !it*, dated Septe7ber "1,
"))), 0hich found respondents 8ointl* and severall* liable to pa* petitioner
da7a2es for the death of his 0ife.
First, the facts9
Petitioner :er7inio Mariano, -r. is the survivin2 spouse of Dr. Frelinda Mariano 0ho
0as a passen2er of a !el*rosa ;press bus bound for Ta2a*ta* 0hen she 7et her
death. Respondent Ildefonso !. !alle8as is the re2istered o0ner of !el*rosa ;press,
0hile respondent d2ar de <or8a 0as the driver of the bus on 0hich the deceased
0as a passen2er.
$t around '91+ p.7. on Nove7ber "#, "))", alon2 $2uinaldo :i2h0a*, San $2ustin,
Das7ari=as, !avite, the !el*rosa ;press bus, carr*in2 Dr. Mariano as its passen2er,
collided 0ith an Isu6u truc> 0ith trailer bearin2 plate nu7bers P-: )+' and TR: /1".
The passen2er bus 0as bound for Ta2a*ta* 0hile the trailer truc> ca7e fro7 the
opposite direction, bound for Manila. The trailer truc> bu7ped the passen2er bus on
its left 7iddle portion. Due to the i7pact, the passen2er bus fell on its ri2ht side on
the ri2ht shoulder of the hi2h0a* and caused the death of Dr. Mariano and ph*sical
in8uries to four other passen2ers. Dr. Mariano 0as 1' *ears old at the ti7e of her
death. She left behind three 7inor children, a2ed four, three and t0o *ears.
Petitioner ?led a co7plaint for breach of contract of carria2e and da7a2es a2ainst
respondents for their failure to transport his 0ife and 7other of his three 7inor
children safel* to her destination. Respondents denied liabilit* for the death of Dr.
Mariano. The* clai7ed that the pro;i7ate cause of the accident 0as the
rec>lessness of the driver of the trailer truc> 0hich bu7ped their bus 0hile alle2edl*
at a halt on the shoulder of the road in its ri2htful lane. Thus, respondent !alle8as
?led a third%part* co7plaint a2ainst @ion2 !hio !han2, doin2 business under the
na7e and st*le of @a Perla Su2ar Suppl*, the o0ner of the trailer truc>, for
inde7nit* in the event that he 0ould be held liable for da7a2es to
petitioner.lavvph!l
Other cases 0ere ?led. !alle8as ?led a co7plaint,
,
doc>eted as !ivil !ase No. N!%1).
before the RT! of Naic, !avite, a2ainst @a Perla Su2ar Suppl* and $rcadio $rcilla, the
truc> driver, for da7a2es he incurred due to the vehicular accident. On Septe7ber
#,, "))#, the said court dis7issed the co7plaint a2ainst @a Perla Su2ar Suppl* for
lac> of evidence. It, ho0ever, found $rcilla liable to pa* !alle8as the cost of the
repairs of his passen2er bus, his lost earnin2s, e;e7plar* da7a2es and attorne*As
fees.
/
$ cri7inal case, !ri7inal !ase No. ###1%)#, 0as also ?led a2ainst truc> driver $rcilla
in the RT! of I7us, !avite. On Ma* 1, ")),, the said court convicted truc> driver
$rcadio $rcilla of the cri7e of rec>less i7prudence resultin2 to ho7icide, 7ultiple
sli2ht ph*sical in8uries and da7a2e to propert*.
'
In the case at bar, the trial court, in its Decision dated Septe7ber "1, "))), found
respondents Ildefonso !alle8as and d2ar de <or8a, to2ether 0ith @ion2 !hio !han2,
8ointl* and severall* liable to pa* petitioner da7a2es and costs of suit. The
dispositive portion of the Decision reads9
$!!ORDIN&@B, the defendants are ordered to pa* as follo0s9
". The su7 of P/+,+++.++ as civil inde7nit* for the loss of lifeC
#. The su7 of P,+,+++.++ as actual and co7pensator* da7a2esC
1. The su7 of P",(#),#++.++ as fore2one inco7eC
,. The su7 of P1+,+++.++ as 7oral da7a2esC
/. The su7 of P#+,+++.++ as e;e7plar* da7a2esC
'. The costs of suit.
SO ORDRD.
.
Respondents !alle8as and De <or8a appealed to the !ourt of $ppeals, contendin2
that the trial court erred in holdin2 the7 2uilt* of breach of contract of carria2e.
On Ma* #", #++,, the !ourt of $ppeals reversed the decision of the trial court. It
reasoned9
. . . the presu7ption of fault or ne2li2ence a2ainst the carrier is onl* a disputable
presu7ption. It 2ives in 0here contrar* facts are established provin2 either that the
carrier had e;ercised the de2ree of dili2ence reDuired b* la0 or the in8ur* suEered
b* the passen2er 0as due to a fortuitous event. Fhere, as in the instant case, the
in8ur* sustained b* the petitioner 0as in no 0a* due to an* defect in the 7eans of
transport or in the 7ethod of transportin2 or to the ne2li2ent or 0ilful acts of private
respondentGs e7plo*ees, and therefore involvin2 no issue of ne2li2ence in its dut* to
provide safe and suitable cars as 0ell as co7petent e7plo*ees, 0ith the in8ur*
arisin2 0holl* fro7 causes created b* stran2ers over 0hich the carrier had no
control or even >no0led2e or could not have prevented, the presu7ption is rebutted
and the carrier is not and ou2ht not to be held liable. To rule other0ise 0ould 7a>e
the co77on carrier the insurer of the absolute safet* of its passen2ers 0hich is not
the intention of the la07a>ers.
(
The dispositive portion of the Decision reads9
F:RFOR, the decision appealed fro7, insofar as it found defendants%appellants
Ildefonso !alle8as and d2ar de <or8a liable for da7a2es to plaintiE%appellee
:er7inio . Mariano, -r., is RVRSD and ST $SID and another one entered
absolvin2 the7 fro7 an* liabilit* for the death of Dr. Frelinda !ar2o Mariano.
)
The appellate court also denied the 7otion for reconsideration ?led b* petitioner.
:ence, this appeal, rel*in2 on the follo0in2 2round9
T: D!ISION OF T: :ONOR$<@ !OHRT OF $PP$@S, SP!I$@ FOHRTNT:
DIVISION IS NOT IN $!!ORD FIT: T: F$!TH$@ <$SIS OF T: !$S.
"+
The follo0in2 are the provisions of the !ivil !ode pertinent to the case at bar9
$RT. ".11. !o77on carriers, fro7 the nature of their business and for reasons of
public polic*, are bound to observe e;traordinar* dili2ence in the vi2ilance over the
2oods and for the safet* of the passen2ers transported b* the7, accordin2 to all the
circu7stances of each case.
$RT. ".//. $ co77on carrier is bound to carr* the passen2ers safel* as far as
hu7an care and foresi2ht can provide, usin2 the ut7ost dili2ence of ver* cautious
persons, 0ith a due re2ard for all the circu7stances.
$RT. "./'. In case of death of or in8uries to passen2ers, co77on carriers are
presu7ed to have been at fault or to have acted ne2li2entl*, unless the* prove that
the* observed e;traordinar* dili2ence as prescribed in articles ".11 and ".//.
In accord 0ith the above provisions, !el*rosa ;press, a co77on carrier, throu2h its
driver, respondent De <or8a, and its re2istered o0ner, respondent !alle8as, has the
e;press obli2ation Ito carr* the passen2ers safel* as far as hu7an care and
foresi2ht can provide, usin2 the ut7ost dili2ence of ver* cautious persons, 0ith a
due re2ard for all the circu7stances,I
""
and to observe e;traordinar* dili2ence in the
dischar2e of its dut*. The death of the 0ife of the petitioner in the course of
transportin2 her to her destination 2ave rise to the presu7ption of ne2li2ence of the
carrier. To overco7e the presu7ption, respondents have to sho0 that the* observed
e;traordinar* dili2ence in the dischar2e of their dut*, or that the accident 0as
caused b* a fortuitous event.
This !ourt interpreted the above Duoted provisions in Pilapil v. !ourt of
$ppeals.
"#
Fe elucidated9
Fhile the la0 reDuires the hi2hest de2ree of dili2ence fro7 co77on carriers in the
safe transport of their passen2ers and creates a presu7ption of ne2li2ence a2ainst
the7, it does not, ho0ever, 7a>e the carrier an insurer of the absolute safet* of its
passen2ers.
$rticle ".// of the !ivil !ode Duali?es the dut* of e;traordinar* care, vi2ilance and
precaution in the carria2e of passen2ers b* co77on carriers to onl* such as hu7an
care and foresi2ht can provide. Fhat constitutes co7pliance 0ith said dut* is
ad8ud2ed 0ith due re2ard to all the circu7stances.
$rticle "./' of the !ivil !ode, in creatin2 a presu7ption of fault or ne2li2ence on the
part of the co77on carrier 0hen its passen2er is in8ured, 7erel* relieves the latter,
for the ti7e bein2, fro7 introducin2 evidence to fasten the ne2li2ence on the
for7er, because the presu7ption stands in the place of evidence. <ein2 a 7ere
presu7ption, ho0ever, the sa7e is rebuttable b* proof that the co77on carrier had
e;ercised e;traordinar* dili2ence as reDuired b* la0 in the perfor7ance of its
contractual obli2ation, or that the in8ur* suEered b* the passen2er 0as solel* due to
a fortuitous event.
In ?ne, 0e can onl* infer fro7 the la0 the intention of the !ode !o77ission and
!on2ress to curb the rec>lessness of drivers and operators of co77on carriers in
the conduct of their business.
Thus, it is clear that neither the la0 nor the nature of the business of a
transportation co7pan* 7a>es it an insurer of the passen2erGs safet*, but that its
liabilit* for personal in8uries sustained b* its passen2er rests upon its ne2li2ence, its
failure to e;ercise the de2ree of dili2ence that the la0 reDuires.
In the case at bar, petitioner cannot succeed in his contention that respondents
failed to overco7e the presu7ption of ne2li2ence a2ainst the7. The totalit* of
evidence sho0s that the death of petitionerAs spouse 0as caused b* the rec>less
ne2li2ence of the driver of the Isu6u trailer truc> 0hich lost its bra>es and bu7ped
the !el*rosa ;press bus, o0ned and operated b* respondents.
First, 0e advert to the s>etch prepared b* PO1 Ma2no S. de Villa, 0ho investi2ated
the accident. The s>etch
"1
sho0s the passen2er bus facin2 the direction of Ta2a*ta*
!it* and l*in2 on its ri2ht side on the shoulder of the road, about ?ve 7eters a0a*
fro7 the point of i7pact. On the other hand, the trailer truc> 0as on the opposite
direction, about /++ 7eters a0a* fro7 the point of i7pact. PO1 De Villa stated that
he intervie0ed De <or8a, respondent driver of the passen2er bus, 0ho said that he
0as about to unload so7e passen2ers 0hen his bus 0as bu7ped b* the driver of
the trailer truc> that lost its bra>es. PO1 De Villa chec>ed out the trailer truc> and
found that its bra>es reall* failed. :e testi?ed before the trial court, as follo0s9
$TTB. ST@BDIJ9
D Bou pointed to the Isu6u truc> be*ond the point of i7pact. Did *ou
investi2ate 0h* did 3sic4 the Isu6u truc> is be*ond the point of i7pactK
a <ecause the truc> has no bra>es.
!OHRT9
D Fhat is the distance bet0een that circle 0hich is 7ar>ed as ;h. "%c to
the place 0here *ou found the sa7eK
a More or less /++ 7eters.
D Fh* did *ou sa* that the truc> has no bra>esK
a I tested it.
D $nd *ou found no bra>esK
a Bes, sir.
; ; ;
D Fhen *ou 0ent to the scene of accident, 0hat 0as the position of
!el*rosa busK
a It 0as l*in2 on its side.
!OHRT9
D Ri2ht side or left sideK
a Ri2ht side.
$TTB. ST@BDIJ9
D On 0hat part of the road 0as it l*in2K
a On the shoulder of the road.
!OHRT9
D :o0 7an* 7eters fro7 the point of i7pactK
a Near, about / 7eters.
",
:is police report bolsters his testi7on* and states9
Said vehicle " Lpassen2er busM 0as runnin2 fro7 Manila to0ard south direction
0hen, in the course of its travel, it 0as hit and bu7ped b* vehicle # Ltruc> 0ith
trailerM then runnin2 fast fro7 opposite direction, causin2 said vehicle " to fall on its
side on the road shoulder, causin2 the death of one and in8uries of so7e passen2ers
thereof, and its da7a2e, after collission (sic), vehicle # continiousl* (sic) ran and
stopped at appro;i7atel* /++ 7eters a0a* fro7 the piont (sic) of i7pact.
"/
In ?ne, the evidence sho0s that before the collision, the passen2er bus 0as cruisin2
on its ri2htful lane alon2 the $2uinaldo :i2h0a* 0hen the trailer truc> co7in2 fro7
the opposite direction, on full speed, suddenl* s0erved and encroached on its lane,
and bu7ped the passen2er bus on its left 7iddle portion. Respondent driver De
<or8a had ever* ri2ht to e;pect that the trailer truc> co7in2 fro7 the opposite
direction 0ould sta* on its proper lane. :e 0as not e;pected to >no0 that the trailer
truc> had lost its bra>es. The s0ervin2 of the trailer truc> 0as abrupt and it 0as
runnin2 on a fast speed as it 0as found /++ 7eters a0a* fro7 the point of collision.
Secondl*, an* doubt as to the culpabilit* of the driver of the trailer truc> ou2ht to
vanish 0hen he pleaded 2uilt* to the char2e of rec>less i7prudence resultin2 to
7ultiple sli2ht ph*sical in8uries and da7a2e to propert* in !ri7inal !ase No. ###1%
)#, involvin2 the sa7e incident.1avvph!1
IN VIF F:ROF, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated Ma* #", #++, and
the Resolution dated -anuar* ., #++/ of the !ourt of $ppeals in !$%&.R. !V No.
''()" are $FFIRMD.
SO ORDRD.