Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22985)
Facts:
Batangas Transportation Company v. Gregorio Caguimbal, Pancracio Caguimbal, Maria Maranan de Caguimbal, Binan Transportation Company and Marciano Ilagan, G.R. No. L-22985, January 24, 1968, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, C.J., writing for the Court.
The accident occurred on April 25, 1954, at about 5:30 a.m. when a Batangas Transportation Company (BTCO) bus (plate TPU‑507), driven by Tomas Perez, was carrying paying passengers on its regular route toward Batangas. One passenger, Pedro Caguimbal, intended to alight near his home in Calansayan, San Jose, Batangas. As the BTCO bus slowed to let him disembark it was partly on the asphalted portion of the road and partly on the right shoulder.
Ahead, a horse‑driven calesa operated by Benito Makahiya was traveling northbound, with a Binan Transportation Company bus (plate TPU‑820) driven by Marciano Ilagan following about 100 meters behind the calesa. Ilagan attempted to pass the calesa by squeezing between it and the BTCO bus; the Binan bus struck the left side of the BTCO bus and then collided with the calesa. The collision wrecked the calesa, killed the horse, seriously injured the Binan driver, and caused the deaths of two BTCO passengers, including Pedro Caguimbal.
The widow and children of Pedro Caguimbal sued BTCO for damages; the case was tried jointly with a similar action by the Tolentinos. BTCO filed a third‑party complaint against Binan and Ilagan, and the Caguimbals later amended to include Binan and Ilagan as direct defendants. The Court of First Instance (CFI) of Batangas dismissed the complaint as to BTCO (without prejudice to plaintiffs suing Binan elsewhere) and made no award as to costs. On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed the CFI and rendered judgment for the plaintiffs,...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was Batangas Transportation Company liable for the death of its passenger despite the reckless overtaking by the Binan bus and driver Ilagan?
- Was the award of attorney’s fees to the plaintiffs authorized and proper unde...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)