DueDiligence

G.R.No.L22533February9,1967
PLACIDOC.RAMOSandAUGUSTOL.RAMOS,petitioners,
vs.
PEPSICOLABOTTLINGCO.OFTHEP.I.andANDRESBONIFACIO,respondents.
BENGZON,J.P.,J.:
PlacidosuedPepsicolaandAndresBonifacioasaconsequenceofacollisioninvolvingPlacidoscar(drivenbyhissonAugusto)and
atractortruckofPepsiCola(drivenbycodefendantAndresBonifacio).CFIfoundBonifacionegligentanddeclaredthatPepsicola
hadnotsufficientlyproveditshavingexercisedtheduediligenceofagoodfatherofafamilytopreventthedamage.CAmodified
trialcourtsdecisionbyabsolvingPepsicolafromliabilityfindingthatthelattersufficientlyprovedduediligenceintheselectionof
itsdriverBonifacio.Issue:WhetherPepsicolaexercisedduediligenceofagoodfatherofafamilyintheselectionofBonifacio?
Held:Yes.Theuncontradictedtestimonyof(the)personnelmanagerofdefendantcompany,wastotheeffectthatdefendantdriver
wasfirsthiredasamemberofthebottlecropintheproductiondepartment:thatwhenhewashiredasadriver,defendantcompany
hadsizehimbylookingintohisbackground,askinghimtosubmitclearances,andlateron,hewassenttothepoolhousetotakethe
usualdriver'sexamination,consistingof,first,theoreticalexaminationandsecond,thepracticaldrivingexamination,allofwhichhe
hadundergone,andthatthedefendantcompanywasamemberoftheSafetyCouncil.Inviewtherefore,weareofsensethatdefendant
companyhadexercisedthediligenceofagoodfatherofafamilyinthechoiceorselectionofdefendantdriver.
Facts:
PlacidoRamossuedPepsiColabottlingandAndresBonifaciointheCFIasaconsequenceofacollisioninvolvingthecarofPlacido
RamosandatractortruckandtrailerofPEPSICOLA.PlacidoscarwasatthetimeofthecollisionwasdrivenbyhissonAugusto
(coplaintiff).PepsicolastractortruckwasdrivenbyitsdriverandcodefendantAndresBonifacio.
CFIfoundBonifacionegligentanddeclaredthatPEPSICOLAhadnotsufficientlyproveditshavingexercisedtheduediligenceofa
goodfatherofafamilytopreventthedamage.
CAaffirmedthetrialcourtsdecisionasitfoundBonifacionegligent,butmodifieditbyabsolvingPepsicolafromliabilityfinding
thatPepsicolasufficientlyprovedduediligenceintheselectionofitsdriverBonifacio.
AppellantscontendedthatAasco,beingPepsicolasemployee,isabiasedandinterestedwitness;andthathistestimonyisnot
believable.
Issue:WhetherPepsicolaexercisedduediligenceofagoodfatherofafamilyintheselectionofitsdriverBonifacio?
Held:Yes.Theuncontradictedtestimonyof(the)personnelmanagerofdefendantcompany,wastotheeffectthatdefendantdriver
wasfirsthiredasamemberofthebottlecropintheproductiondepartment:thatwhenhewashiredasadriver,defendantcompany
hadsizehimbylookingintohisbackground,askinghimtosubmitclearances,andlateron,hewassenttothepoolhousetotakethe
usualdriver'sexamination,consistingof,first,theoreticalexaminationandsecond,thepracticaldrivingexamination,allofwhichhe
hadundergone,andthatthedefendantcompanywasamemberoftheSafetyCouncil.Inviewtherefore,weareofsensethatdefendant
companyhadexercisedthediligenceofagoodfatherofafamilyinthechoiceorselectionofdefendantdriver.
AascoscredibilityisnotforthisCourtnowtoreexamine.AndsaidwitnesshavingbeenfoundcrediblebytheCourtofAppeals,his
testimony,asacceptedbysaidCourt,cannotatthisstagebeassailed.
FromArticle2180,twothingsareapparent;(1)Thatwhenaninjuryiscausedbythenegligenceofaservantoremployeethere
instantlyarisesapresumptionoflawthattherewasnegligenceonthepartofthemasteroremployereitherintheselectionofthe
servantoremployee,orinsupervisionoverhimaftertheselection;orboth;and(2)thatthepresumptionisjuristantumandnotjuriset
dejure,andconsequentlymayberebutted.Itfollowsnecessarilythatiftheemployershowstothesatisfactionofthecourtthatin
selectionandsupervisionhehasexercisedthecareanddiligenceofagoodfatherofafamily,thepresumptionisovercomeandheis
relievedfromliability.
Prescription
G.R.No.L85868

October13,1989

ALLIEDBANKINGCORPORATION,petitioner,
vs.
COURTOFAPPEALSANDJOSELITOZ.YUJUICO,respondents.
GANCAYCO,J.:
PrivaterespondentJoselitoYujuico,rankingofficerofGENBANKandamemberofthefamilyowningthecontrollinginterestinthe
saidbank,obtainedaloanfromGENBANKintheamountoffivehundredthousandpesos.Asevidencethereof,heissueda
promissorynoteinfavorofGENBANK.Themonetaryboardofthecentralbankissuedaresolutionforbiddinggenbankfromdoing
businessinthePhilippines.Allied(throughMemorandumofAgreemendexecutedbyAlliedBankingandArnulfoAurellanoas
liquidatorofGenbank)acquiredalltheassetsandassumedtheliabilitiesofGENBANK,whichincludesthereceivabledurefrom
privaterespondentunderthepromissorynote.February7,1979,Alliedfiledacomplaintforthecollectionofasumofmoney.
Sometimein1987,privaterespondentsoughttoimpleadCentralBankandAurellanoasthirdpartydefendants.Itwasallegedinthe
thirdpartycomplaintthatbyreasonofthetortiousinterferencebytheCentralbankwiththeaffairsofGENBANK,privaterespondent
waspreventedfromperforminghisobligationundertheloan.Issue:Whetherthecauseofactionunderthethirdpartycomplainthas
prescribed?Held:Yes.Theactionfordamagesinstitutedbyprivaterespondentarisingfromthequasidelictoralleged"tortious
interference"shouldbefiledwithinfour(4)yearsfromthedaythecauseofactionaccrued.Sincethecauseofactionaccruedon
March25,1980whentheMonetaryBoardorderedtheGeneralBanktodesistfromdoingbusinessinthePhilippineswhilethethird
partycomplaintwasfiledonlyonJune17,1987,consequently,theactionhasprescribed.Thethirdpartycomplaintshouldnotbe
admitted.
Facts:
OnApril1,1976,privaterespondentJoselitoZ.YujuicoobtainedaloanfromtheGeneralBankandTrustCompany(GENBANK)in
theamountofFiveHundredThousandpesos,payableonorbeforeApril1,1977.Asevidencethereof,privaterespondentissueda
correspondingpromissorynoteinfavorofGENBANK.Atthetimeprivaterespondentincurredtheobligation,hewasthenaranking
officerofGENBANKandamemberofthefamilyowningthecontrollinginterestinthesaidbank.
OnMarch25,1977,theMonetaryBoardoftheCentralBankissuedResolutionNo.675forbiddingGENBANKfromdoingbusiness
inthePhilippines.ThiswasfollowedbyResolutionNo.677issuedbytheMonetaryBoardonMarch29,1977orderingthe
liquidationofGENBANK.
ItappearsthatinaMemorandumofAgreementdatedMay9,1977executedbyandbetweenAlliedBankingCorporation(ALLIED)
andArnulfoAurellanoasLiquidatorofGENBANK,ALLIEDacquiredalltheassetsandassumedtheliabilitiesofGENBANK,which
includesthereceivableduefromprivaterespondentunderthepromissorynote.
Uponfailingtocomplywiththeobligationunderthepromissorynote,petitionerALLIED,onFebruary7,1979,filedacomplaint
againstprivaterespondentforthecollectionofasumofmoney.
Sometimein1987,privaterespondentsoughttoimpleadtheCentralBankandArnulfoAurellanoasthirdpartydefendants.Itwas
allegedinthethirdpartycomplaintthatbyreasonofthetortiousinterferencebytheCentralBankwiththeaffairsofGENBANK,
privaterespondentwaspreventedfromperforminghisobligationundertheloansuchthatheshouldnotnowbeheldliablethereon.
Hon.JudgeFelixB.MintuissuedanorderdatedAugust13,1987denyingtheadmissionofthethirdpartycomplaintbutadmitting
privaterespondent'samended/supplementalanswer.
WhenthecasewasreraffledtoBranch61oftheRegionalTrialCourtofManila,presidingJudgeDomingoD.Panis,onFebruary29,
1988,reiteratedtheorderdenyingtheadmissionofprivaterespondent'sthirdpartycomplaintandadmittingthe
amended/supplementalanswer.Whenbothpartiesfiledtheirrespectivemotionsforpartialreconsideration,theHon.JudgePanis
issuedanorderdatedApril18,1988denyingbothmotions.
CA:WHEREFORE,findinggraveabuseofdiscretiononthepartoftherespondentJudge,theOrderofFebruary29,1988aswellas
thatofApril18,1988insofarasitdeniespetitioner'smotiontoadmithisthirdpartycomplaint,isherebydeclarednullandvoid.
Respondentjudgeisherebyorderedtoadmittheproposedthirdpartycomplaint.Costdeoficio.
Issuewhetherthecauseofactionunderthethirdpartycomplainthasprescribed?

Held:
Therecanbenoquestioninthiscasethattheactionfordamagesinstitutedbyprivaterespondentarisingfromthequasidelictor
allegedtortiousinterference"shouldbefiledwithinfour(4)yearsfromthedaythecauseofactionaccrued.18
InthecaseofEspaolvs.Chairman,PhilippineVeteransAdministration,19thisCourtruledthatitisfromthedateoftheactor
omissionviolativeoftherightofapartywhenthecauseofactionarisesanditisfromthisdatethattheprescriptiveperiodmustbe
reckoned.
Thus,whiletechnicallythethirdpartycomplaintinthiscasemaybeadmittedasabovediscussed,however,sincethecauseofaction
accruedonMarch25,1980whentheMonetaryBoardorderedtheGeneralBanktodesistfromdoingbusinessinthePhilippineswhile
thethirdpartycomplaintwasfiledonlyonJune17,1987,consequently,theactionhasprescribed.Thethirdpartycomplaintshould
notbeadmitted.
ProximateCause
Definition
G.R.No.72964 January7,1988
FILOMENOURBANO,petitioner,
vs.
HON.INTERMEDIATEAPPELLATECOURTANDPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,respondents.
GUTIERREZ,JR.,J.:
OnOctober23,1980,Urbanowenttohisricefieldatabout100metersfromthetobaccoseedbedofJavier.Hefoundtheplacewhere
hestoredhispalayfloodedwithwatercomingfromtheirrigationcanalnearbywhichhadoverflowed.Urbanowenttotheelevated
portionofthecanaltoseewhathappenedandtherehesawMarceloJavierandEmilioErfecuttinggrass.Heaskedthemwhowas
responsiblefortheopeningoftheirrigationcanalandJavieradmittedthathewastheone.Aquarrelensued,andUrbanohitJavieron
therightpalmwithhisbolo,andagainonthelegwiththebackofthebolo.UrbanoandJavierhadanamicablesettlementwhereinthe
formeragreedtopayforthemedicalexpensesofthelatter.OnNovember14,1980,Javierwasrushedtothehospitalduetolockjaw
andconvulsions.Thedoctorfoundtheconditiontobecausedbytetanustoxinwhichinfectedthehealingwoundinhispalm.Hedied
thefollowingday.UrbanowaschargedwithhomicideandwasfoundguiltybothbythetrialcourtandonappealbytheCourtof
Appeals.UrbanofiledamotionfornewtrialbasedontheaffidavitoftheBarangayCaptainwhostatedthathesawthedeceased
catchingfishintheshallowirrigationcanalsonNovember5.Themotionwasdenied;hence,thispetition.Issue:Whetherthewound
inflictedbyUrbanotoJavierwastheproximatecauseofthelattersdeath?Held:No.Theruleisthatthedeathofthevictimmustbe
thedirect,natural,andlogicalconsequenceofthewoundsinflicteduponhimbytheaccused.(Peoplev.Cardenas,supra)Andsince
wearedealingwithacriminalconviction,theproofthattheaccusedcausedthevictim'sdeathmustconvincearationalmindbeyond
reasonabledoubt.Themedicalfindings,however,leadustoadistinctpossibilitythattheinfectionofthewoundbytetanuswasan
efficientinterveningcauselaterorbetweenthetimeJavierwaswoundedtothetimeofhisdeath.Theinfectionwas,therefore,distinct
andforeigntothecrime.(Peoplev.Rellin,77Phil.1038).Doubtsarepresent.Thereisalikelihoodthatthewoundwasbuttheremote
causeanditssubsequentinfection,forfailuretotakenecessaryprecautions,withtetanusmayhavebeentheproximatecauseof
Javier'sdeathwithwhichthepetitionerhadnothingtodo.
Facts:
ThisisapetitiontoreviewthedecisionofthethenIntermediateAppellateCourtwhichaffirmedthedecisionofthethenCircuit
CriminalCourtofDagupanCityfindingpetitionerFilomenoUrbanguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofhomicide.
Atabout8:00o'clockinthemorningofOctober23,1980,petitionerFilomenoUrbanowenttohisricefieldatabout100metersfrom
thetobaccoseedbedofMarceloJavier.Hefoundtheplacewherehestoredhispalayfloodedwithwatercomingfromtheirrigation
canalnearbywhichhadoverflowed.UrbanowenttotheelevatedportionofthecanaltoseewhathappenedandtherehesawMarcelo
JavierandEmilioErfecuttinggrass.HeaskedthemwhowasresponsiblefortheopeningoftheirrigationcanalandJavieradmitted
thathewastheone.UrbanothengotangryanddemandedthatJavierpayforhissoakedpalay.Aquarrelbetweenthemensued.
Urbanounsheathedhisbolo(about2feetlong,includingthehandle,by2incheswide)andhackedJavierhittinghimontherightpalm
ofhishand,whichwasusedinparryingthebolohack.JavierwhowasthenunarmedranawayfromUrbanobutwasovertakenby
UrbanowhohackedhimagainhittingJavierontheleftlegwiththebackportionofsaidbolo,causingaswellingonsaidleg.When
Urbanotriedtohackandinflictfurtherinjury,hisdaughterembracedandpreventedhimfromhackingJavier.
ExhibitC

TOWHOMITMAYCONCERN:
ThisistocertifythatIhaveexaminedthewoundofMarceloJavier,20yearsofage,married,residingatBarangay
Anonang,SanFabian,PangasinanonOctober23,1980andfoundthefollowing:
1

Incisedwound2inchesinlengthattheupperportionofthelesserpalmarprominence,right.

Astomyobservationtheincapacitationisfrom(79)daysperiod.Thiswoundwaspresentedtomeonlyformedico
legalexamination,asitwasalreadytreatedbytheotherdoctor.(p.88,OriginalRecords)
OnOctober27,1980,UrbanoandJavierhadanamicablesettlement.UrbanopaidP700forthemedicalexpensesofJavier.
OnNovember14,1980,Javierwasrushedtothehospitalinaveryseriouscondition.Whenadmittedtothehospital,Javierhad
lockjawandwashavingconvulsions.Dr.EdmundoExcondefoundthatJaviersseriousconditionwascausedbytetanustoxin.He
noticedthepresenceofahealingwoundinJavier'spalmwhichcouldhavebeeninfectedbytetanus.Thenextday,Javierdiedinthe
hospital.
Urbanowaschargedwiththecrimeofhomicide.Aftertrial,thetrialcourtfoundUrbanoguiltyascharged.IACaffirmedthe
convictiononappealbutraisedtheawardofindemnitytotheheirs.Urbanofiledamotionfornewtrialbasedontheaffidavitofthe
BarangayCaptainwhostatedthathesawthedeceasedcatchingfishintheshallowirrigationcanalsonNovember5.Themotionwas
denied;hence,thispetition.
Issue:WhetherthewoundinflictedbyUrbanotoJavierwastheproximatecauseofthelattersdeath?
Held:No.TheinstantpetitionisherebyGRANTED.ThequestioneddecisionofthethenIntermediateAppellateCourt,nowCourtof
Appeals,isREVERSEDandSETASIDE.ThepetitionerisACQUITTEDofthecrimeofhomicide.
ACCUSEDINCASEATBARNOTLIABLEFORSUBSEQUENTDEATHOFHACKINGVICTIMDUETOTETANUSNOT
PRESENTATTIMEOFINFLICTIONOFWOUND.Inthecaseatbar,Javiersuffereda2inchincisedwoundonhisrightpalm
whenheparriedthebolowhichUrbanousedinhackinghim.ThisincidenttookplaceonOctober23,1980.After22days,oron
November14,1980,hesufferedthesymptomsoftetanus,likelockjawandmusclespasms.Thefollowingday,November15,1980,
hedied.If,therefore,thewoundofJavierinflictedbytheappellantwasalreadyinfectedbytetanusgermsatthetime,itismore
medicallyprobablethatJaviershouldhavebeeninfectedwithonlyamildcauseoftetanusbecausethesymptomsoftetanusappeared
onthe22nddayafterthehackingincidentormorethan14daysaftertheinflictionofthewound.Therefore,theonsettimeshould
haveseenmorethansixdays.Javier,however,diedontheseconddayfromtheonsettime.Themorecredibleconclusionisthatatthe
timeJavier'swoundwasinflictedbytheappellant,thesevereformoftetanusthatkilledhimwasnotyetpresent.Consequently,
Javier'swoundcouldhavebeeninfectedwithtetanusafterthehackingincident.ConsideringthecircumstancesurroundingJavier's
death,hiswoundcouldhavebeeninfectedbytetanus2or3orafewbutnot20to22daysbeforehedied.
CONVICTIONTOHOMICIDEREQUIRESPROOFBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBTTHATWOUNDWASPROXIMATE
CAUSEOFDEATH.Theruleisthatthedeathofthevictimmustbethedirect,natural,andlogicalconsequenceofthewounds
inflicteduponhimbytheaccused.(Peoplev.Cardenas,supra)Andsincewearedealingwithacriminalconviction,theproofthatthe
accusedcausedthevictim'sdeathmustconvincearationalmindbeyondreasonabledoubt.Themedicalfindings,however,leadustoa
distinctpossibilitythattheinfectionofthewoundbytetanuswasanefficientinterveningcauselaterorbetweenthetimeJavierwas
woundedtothetimeofhisdeath.Theinfectionwas,therefore,distinctandforeigntothecrime.(Peoplev.Rellin,77Phil.1038).
Doubtsarepresent.Thereisalikelihoodthatthewoundwasbuttheremotecauseanditssubsequentinfection,forfailuretotake
necessaryprecautions,withtetanusmayhavebeentheproximatecauseofJavier'sdeathwithwhichthepetitionerhadnothingtodo.
G.R.No.150304June15,2005
QUEZONCITYGOVERNMENTandEngineerRAMIRJ.TIAMZON,Petitioners,
vs.
FULGENCIODACARA*,Respondent.
PANGANIBAN,J.:
DacaraJr.scarturnedturtlewhenherammeditintoapileofearth/streetdiggingsfoundatMatahimikSt.,QC,whichwasthenbeing
repairedbytheQCgovernment.Defendantsclaimedthattheyexercisedduecarebyprovidingtheareaofthediggingsallnecessary

measurestoavoidaccident.Hence,thereasonwhyFulgencioDacara,Jr.fellintothediggingswaspreciselybecauseofthelatter's
negligenceandfailuretoexerciseduecare.LowercourtruledthatQuezonCitygovernmentisliable.Issue:whetherthenegligenceof
thepetitionerswastheproximatecauseoftheaccident?Held:Yes.Contrarytothetestimonyofthewitnessesforthedefensethat
thereweresigns,gaserawhichwasburiedsothatitslightcouldnotbeblownoffbythewindandbarricade,nonewaseverpresented
tostressthepointthatsufficientandadequateprecautionarysignswereplacedatMatahimikStreet.Ifindeedsignswereplaced
thereat,howthencoulditbeexplainedthataccordingtothereportevenofthepolicemanwhichforclarityisquotedagain,nonewas
foundatthesceneoftheaccident.ItistoolateinthedayforthemtoraisenewissuethatFulgencioJr.wasdrivingatthespeedof60
kilometersperhour(kph)whenhemettheaccident.Thisspeedwasallegedlywellabovethemaximumlimitof30kphallowedon
"citystreetswithlighttraffic,whennotdesignated'throughstreets'.Itiswellsettledthatpointsoflaw,theoriesorargumentsnot
broughtoutintheoriginalproceedingscannotbeconsideredonrevieworappeal.Toconsidertheirbelatedlyraisedargumentsatthis
stageoftheproceedingswouldtrampleonthebasicprinciplesoffairplay,justice,anddueprocess.
Facts:
DacaraJr.scarturnedturtlewhenherammeditintoapileofearth/streetdiggingsfoundatMatahimikSt.,QC,whichwasthenbeing
repairedbytheQCgovernment.Asaresult,DacaraJr.allegedlysustainedbodilyinjuriesandthevehiclesufferedextensivedamage.
DacaraSr.filedacomplaintfordamagesagainsttheQuezonCityandEngineerTiamzon.Defendantsadmittedtheoccurrenceofthe
incidentbutallegedthatthesubjectdiggingswasprovidedwithamoun[d]ofsoilandbarricadedwithreflectorizedtrafficpaintwith
sticksplacedbeforeorafteritwhichwasvisibleduringtheincidentonFebruary28,1988at1:00A.M.Inshort,defendantsclaimed
thattheyexercisedduecarebyprovidingtheareaofthediggingsallnecessarymeasurestoavoidaccident.Hence,thereasonwhy
FulgencioDacara,Jr.fellintothediggingswaspreciselybecauseofthelatter'snegligenceandfailuretoexerciseduecare.
ThetrialcourtruledthattheLGUisliable.
Issue:Whetherthenegligenceofthepetitionerswastheproximatecauseoftheaccident?
Held:Yes.
Thatthenegligenceofpetitionerswastheproximatecauseoftheaccidentwasaptlydiscussedinthelowercourt'sfinding,whichwe
quote:
"FactsobtaininginthiscasearecrystalclearthattheaccidentofFebruary28,1988whichcausedalmostthelifeandlimbof
FulgencioDacara,Jr.whenhiscarturnedturtlewastheexistenceofapileofearthfromadiggingdonerelativetothebasefailureat
MatahimikStreetnaryalightingdeviceorareflectorizedbarricadeorsignperhapswhichcouldhaveservedasanadequatewarning
tomotoristespeciallyduringthethickofthenightwheredarknessispervasive.
"Contrarytothetestimonyofthewitnessesforthedefensethatthereweresigns,gaserawhichwasburiedsothatitslightcouldnotbe
blownoffbythewindandbarricade,nonewaseverpresentedtostressthepointthatsufficientandadequateprecautionarysignswere
placedatMatahimikStreet.Ifindeedsignswereplacedthereat,howthencoulditbeexplainedthataccordingtothereportevenofthe
policemanwhichforclarityisquotedagain,nonewasfoundatthesceneoftheaccident.
PetitionersbelatedlypointoutthatFulgencioJr.wasdrivingatthespeedof60kilometersperhour(kph)whenhemettheaccident.
Thisspeedwasallegedlywellabovethemaximumlimitof30kphallowedon"citystreetswithlighttraffic,whennotdesignated
'throughstreets,'"asprovidedundertheLandTransportationandTrafficCode(RepublicAct4136).Thus,petitionersassertthat
FulgencioJr.,havingviolatedatrafficregulation,shouldbepresumednegligentpursuanttoArticle218521oftheCivilCode.
Thesematterswere,however,notraisedbypetitionersatanytimeduringthetrial.Itisevidentfromtherecordsthattheybroughtup
forthefirsttimethematterofviolationofRA4136intheirMotionforReconsiderationoftheCADecisiondatedFebruary21,2001.
Itistoolateinthedayforthemtoraisethisnewissue.Itiswellsettledthatpointsoflaw,theoriesorargumentsnotbroughtoutinthe
originalproceedingscannotbeconsideredonrevieworappeal.Toconsidertheirbelatedlyraisedargumentsatthisstageofthe
proceedingswouldtrampleonthebasicprinciplesoffairplay,justice,anddueprocess.
Indeed,boththetrialandtheappellatecourts'findings,whichareamplysubstantiatedbytheevidenceonrecord,clearlypointto
petitioners'negligenceastheproximatecauseofthedamagessufferedbyrespondent'scar.Noadequatereasonhasbeengivento
overturnthisfactualconclusion.
Distinguishedfromotherkinds
G.R.No.L21512August31,1966

PROSPEROSABIDOandASERLAGUNDA,petitioners,
vs.
CARLOSCUSTODIO,BELENMAKABUHAYCUSTODIOandTHEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALS,respondents.
CONCEPCION,C.J.:
Twotrucks,onedrivenbyNicasioMudalesandbelongingtoLagunaTayabasBusCompany,andtheotherdrivenbyAserLagunda
andownedbyProsperoSabido,goinginoppositedirectionsmeteachotherinaroadcurve.AgripinoCustodiaapassengerofLTB
bus,whowashangingontheleftsideastruckwasfullofpassengerswassideswipedbythetrackdrivenbyAserLagunda.Asa
result,AgripinoCustodiowasinjuredanddied.AgripinohangingontheleftsideoftheLTBbusmakesthedefendantLTBCompany
liablefordamages.FromthetestimonyofAgripinoswidow,wecandeducethatLagundawasequallynegligentasMudales.The
widowtestifiedthatthe6x6truckwasrunningfastwhenitmettheLTBBus.Issue:whetherthecontributorynegligenceofpetitioners
wasasmuchaproximatecauseoftheaccidentasthecarriersnegligence?Held:Yes.Wherethecontributorynegligenceof
petitionerswasasmuchaproximatecauseoftheaccidentasthecarriersnegligence,theirliabilityissolidary.Wherethecarrier
(LTB)busanditsdriverwereclearlyguiltyofcontributorynegligenceforhavingallowedapassengertorideontherunningboardof
thebus,andwherethedriveroftheothervehiclewasalsoguiltyofcontributorynegligence,becausethatvehiclewasrunningat
aconsiderablespeed,despitethefactthatitwasnegotiatingasharpcurve,and,insteadofbeingclosetoitsrightsideoftheroad,itwas
drivenonitsmiddleportionthereofandsonearthepassengerbuscomingfromtheoppositedirectionastosideswipeapassengeron
itsrunningboard,theownersofthetwovehicleareliablesolidarilyforthedeathofthepassenger,althoughtheliabilityofonearises
fromabreachofcontract,whereasthatoftheotherspringsfromaquasidelict.Wheretheconcurrentorsuccessivenegligentactsor
omissionoftwomorepersons,althoughactingindependentlyofeachother,are,incombination,thedirectandproximatecauseofa
singleinjurytoathirdperson,anditisimpossibletodetermineinwhatproportioneachcontributedtotheinjury,eitherisresponsible
forthewholeinjury,eventhoughhisactalonemightnothavecausedtheentireinjury,orthesamedamagemighthaveresultedfrom
theactsoftheothertortfeasor
Facts:
Twotrucks,onedrivenbyNicasioMudalesandbelongingtoLagunaTayabasBusCompany,andtheotherdrivenbyAserLagunda
andownedbyProsperoSabido,goinginoppositedirectionsmeteachotherinaroadcurve.AgripinoCustodiaapassengerofLTB
bus,whowashangingontheleftsideastruckwasfullofpassengerswassideswipedbythetrackdrivenbyAserLagunda.Asa
result,AgripinoCustodiowasinjuredanddied.
EvidenceshowthatAgripinoCustodiowashangingontheleftsideoftheLTBbus.Otherwise,werehesittinginsidethetruck,he
couldnothavebeenstruckbythesixbysixtruckdrivenbyAserLagunda.Thisfactalone,ofallowingAgripinoCustodiotohangon
thesideofthetruck,makesthedefendantLagunaTayabasBusCompanyliablefordamages.Forcertainlyitsemployees,whoarethe
driverandconductorwerenegligent.TheyshouldnothaveallowedAgripinoCustodiotoridetheirtruckinthatmanner.
Toavoidanyliability,AserLagundaandProsperoSabidothrowalltheblameonNicasioMudales.FromthetestimonyofAgripino
Custodio'swidow,wecandeducethatAserLagundawasequallynegligentasNicasioMudales.Belentestifiedthatthe6x6truck
wasrunningfastwhenitmettheLTBBus.AndAserLagundahadtimeandopportunitytoavoidthemishapifhehadbeen
sufficientlycarefulandcautiousbecausethetwotrucksnevercollidedwitheachother.Bysimplyswervingtotherightsideofthe
road,the6x6truckcouldhaveavoidedhittingAgripinoCustodio.ItisincrediblethattheLTBwasrunningonthemiddleoftheroad
whenpassingacurve.Heknowsitisdangeroustodoso.Weareratherofthebeliefthatbothtrucksdidnotkeepclosetotheright
sideoftheroadsotheysideswipedeachotherandthusAgripinoCustodiowasinjuredanddied.Inotherwords,bothdriversmust
havedriveintheirtrucksnotintheproperlaneandare,therefore,bothrecklessandnegligent.
Baseduponthesefacts,theCourtofFirstInstanceofLagunaandtheCourtofAppealsconcludedthattheLagunaTayabasBusCo.
hereinafterreferredtoasthecarrieranditsdriverNicasioMudales(noneofwhomhasappealed),hadviolatedthecontractof
carriagewithAgripinoCustodio,whereaspetitionersSabidoandLagundawereguiltyofaquasidelict,byreasonofwhichallofthem
wereheldsolidarityliableinthemanneraboveindicated.
Issue:whetherpetitionersshouldbeheldsolidarilyliablewiththecarrieranditsdriver?
Held:Yes.ThecarrieranditsdriverwereclearlyguiltyofnegligenceforhavingallowedAgripinoCustodiotorideontherunning
boardofthebus,inviolationofSection42ofActNo.3992,andthatthisnegligencewastheproximatecauseofAgripino'sdeath.It
shouldbenoted,however,thatthelowercourthad,likewise,foundthepetitionersguiltyofcontributorynegligence,whichwasas
muchaproximatecauseoftheaccidentasthecarrier'snegligence,forpetitioners'truckwasrunningataconsiderablespeed,despite
thefactthatitwasnegotiatingasharpcurve,and,insteadofbeingclosetoitsrightsideoftheroad,saidtruckwasdrivenonits

middleportionandsonearthepassengerbuscomingfromtheoppositedirectionastosideswipeapassengerridingonitsrunning
board.
Althoughthenegligenceofthecarrieranditsdriverisindependent,initsexecution,ofthenegligenceofthetruckdriverandits
owner,bothactsofnegligencearetheproximatecauseofthedeathofAgripinoCustodio.Infact,thenegligenceofthefirsttwo(2)
wouldnothaveproducedthisresultwithoutthenegligenceofpetitioners'herein.Whatismore,petitioners'negligencewasthelast,in
pointoftime,forCustodiowasontherunningboardofthecarrier'sbussometimebeforepetitioners'truckcamefromtheopposite
direction,sothat,inthissense,petitioners'truckhadthelastclearchance.
Petitionerscontendthattheyshouldnotbeheldsolidarilyliablewiththecarrieranditsdriver,becausethelatter'sliabilityarisesfrom
abreachofcontract,whereasthatoftheformerspringsfromaquasidelict.Theruleis,however,that
Accordingtothegreatweightofauthority,wheretheconcurrentorsuccessivenegligentactsoromissionoftwoormorepersons,
althoughactingindependentlyofeachother,are,incombination,thedirectandproximatecauseofasingleinjurytoathirdperson,
anditisimpossibletodetermineinwhatproportioneachcontributedtotheinjury,eitherisresponsibleforthewholeinjury,even
thoughhisactalonemightnothavecausedtheentireinjury,orthesamedamagemighthaveresultedfromtheactsoftheothertort
feasor
Causevs.condition
G.R.No.L15688November19,1921
REMIGIORODRIGUEZ,ETAL.,plaintiffsappellees,
vs.
THEMANILARAILROADCOMPANY,defendantappellant.
STREET,J.:
RailroadCompanyoperatesalinethroughthedistrictofDaragainthemunicipalityofAlbay;thatonJanuary29,1918,asoneofits
trainspassedoversaidline,agreatquantityofsparkswereemittedfromthesmokestackofthelocomotive,andfirewasthereby
communicatedtofourhousesnearbybelongingtothefourplaintiffsrespectively,andthesamewereentirelyconsumed.Allofthese
houseswereoflightconstructionwiththeexceptionofthehouseofRemigioRodrigueza,whichwasofstrongmaterials,thoughthe
roofwascoveredwithnipaandcogon.Thefireoccurredimmediatelyafterthepassageofthetrain,andastrongwindwasblowingat
thetime.Itdoesnotappeareitherinthecomplaintorintheagreedstatementwhosehousecaughtfirefirst,thoughitisstatedinthe
appellant'sbriefthatthefirewasfirstcommunicatedtothehouseofRemigioRodrigueza,fromwhenceitspreadtotheothers.
DefendantcompanycontendedthattherewascontributorynegligenceonthepartofRemigioRodriguezainhavinghishousepartly
onthepremisesoftheRailroadCompany,andthatforthisreasonthecompanyisnotliable.Issue:Whethertherewascontributory
negligenceonthepartofRemigioRodriguezainhavinghishousepartlyonthepremisesoftheRailroadCompany,andthatforthis
reasonthecompanyisnotliable?Held:No,therewasnocontributorynegligenceonthepartofRodrigueza.Thecircumstancethat
RemigioRodrigueza'shousewaspartlyonthepropertyofthedefendantcompanyandthereforeindangerousproximitytopassing
locomotiveswasanantecedentconditionthatmayinfacthavemadethedisasterpossible,butthatcircumstancecannotbeimputedto
himascontributorynegligencedestructiveofhisrightofaction,because,first,thatconditionwasnotcreatedbyhimself;secondly,
becausehishouseremainedonthisgroundbythetoleration,andthereforewiththeconsentoftheRailroadCompany;andthirdly,
becauseevensupposingthehousetobeimproperlythere,thisfactwouldnotjustifythedefendantinnegligentlydestroyingit.
Facts:
Thefactsasappearingfromtheagreedstatement,inrelationwiththecomplaint,aretotheeffectthatthedefendantRailroadCompany
operatesalinethroughthedistrictofDaragainthemunicipalityofAlbay;thatonJanuary29,1918,asoneofitstrainspassedover
saidline,agreatquantityofsparkswereemittedfromthesmokestackofthelocomotive,andfirewastherebycommunicatedtofour
housesnearbybelongingtothefourplaintiffsrespectively,andthesamewereentirelyconsumed.Allofthesehouseswereoflight
constructionwiththeexceptionofthehouseofRemigioRodrigueza,whichwasofstrongmaterials,thoughtheroofwascoveredwith
nipaandcogon.Thefireoccurredimmediatelyafterthepassageofthetrain,andastrongwindwasblowingatthetime.Itdoesnot
appeareitherinthecomplaintorintheagreedstatementwhosehousecaughtfirefirst,thoughitisstatedintheappellant'sbriefthat
thefirewasfirstcommunicatedtothehouseofRemigioRodrigueza,fromwhenceitspreadtotheothers.
ItisallegedthatthedefendantRailroadCompanywasconspicuouslynegligentinrelationtotheoriginofsaidfire,inthefollowing
respects,namely,first,infailingtoexercisepropersupervisionovertheemployeesinchargeofthelocomotive;secondly,inallowing

thelocomotivewhichemittedthesesparkstobeoperatedwithouthavingthesmokestackprotectedbysomedeviceforarresting
sparks;thirdly,inusinginitslocomotiveuponthisoccasionBataancoal,afuelofknowninferiorqualitywhich,uponcombustion,
producessparksingreatquantity.
Accordingtothedefendantcompany,thehouseofRodriguezastoodpartlywithinthelimitsofthelandownedbytheformer.After
therailroadtrackwaslaid,thecompanynotifiedRodriguezatogethishouseoffthelandofthecompanyandtoremoveitfromits
exposedposition.Rodriguezadidnotcomplywiththissuggestion.Uponthisfactitiscontendedforthedefensethattherewas
contributorynegligenceonthepartofRemigioRodriguezainhavinghishousepartlyonthepremisesoftheRailroadCompany,and
thatforthisreasonthecompanyisnotliable.
Issue:WhethertherewascontributorynegligenceonthepartofRemigioRodriguezainhavinghishousepartlyonthepremisesofthe
RailroadCompany,andthatforthisreasonthecompanyisnotliable?
Held:No.Inthefirstplace,itwillbenotedthatthefactsuggestedasconstitutingadefensetothisactioncouldnotinanyviewofthe
caseoperateasabartorecoverybythethreeplaintiffsotherthanRemigioRodrigueza,evenassumingthatthefirewasfirst
communicatedtohishouse;forsaidthreeplaintiffsareinnowiseimplicatedintheactwhichsupposedlyconstitutesthedefense.In
thisconnectionitwillbeobservedthattherightofactionofeachoftheseplaintiffsistotallydistinctfromthatofhiscoplaintiff,so
muchsothateachmighthavesuedseparately,andthedefendantifithadseenfittodoso,mightinthiscasehavedemurred
successfullytothecomplaintformisjoinderofpartiesplaintiff.
Inthesituationnowunderconsiderationtheproximateandonlycauseofthedamagethatoccurredwasthenegligentactofthe
defendantincausingthisfire.ThecircumstancethatRemigioRodrigueza'shousewaspartlyonthepropertyofthedefendant
companyandthereforeindangerousproximitytopassinglocomotiveswasanantecedentconditionthatmayinfacthavemadethe
disasterpossible,butthatcircumstancecannotbeimputedtohimascontributorynegligencedestructiveofhisrightofaction,because,
first,thatconditionwasnotcreatedbyhimself;secondly,becausehishouseremainedonthisgroundbythetoleration,andtherefore
withtheconsentoftheRailroadCompany;andthirdly,becauseevensupposingthehousetobeimproperlythere,thisfactwouldnot
justifythedefendantinnegligentlydestroyingit.
Thecircumstancethatthedefendantcompany,uponplantingitslinenearRemigioRodrigueza'shouse,hadrequestedordirectedhim
toremoveit,didnotconverthisoccupancyintoatrespass,orimposeuponhimanyadditionalresponsibilityoverandabovewhatthe
lawitselfimposesinsuchsituation.Inthisconnectionitmustberememberedthatthecompanycouldatanytimehaveremovedsaid
houseintheexerciseofthepowerofeminentdomain,butitelectednottodoso.