Title
Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez
Case
G.R. No. 34840
Decision Date
Sep 23, 1931
A 1930 collision between a truck and a car caused injuries to passenger Narciso Gutierrez. Both drivers were found negligent; the car owner (father) was liable for his minor son’s actions, and the truck owner/driver shared liability. Damages were reduced to P5,000.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 34840)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and vehicles involved
    • Plaintiff and Appellee: Narciso Gutierrez, passenger in a truck owned by Saturnino Cortez.
    • Defendants and Appellants:
      • Abelardo Velasco, chauffeur of the passenger truck.
      • Saturnino Cortez, owner of the passenger truck.
      • Bonifacio Gutierrez, 18-year-old driver of a private automobile.
      • Manuel Gutierrez and Maria V. de Gutierrez, owners of the private automobile and parents of Bonifacio.
  • Accident circumstances
    • Date and location: February 2, 1930, Talon Bridge on Manila South Road, Las Piñas, Rizal Province.
    • Collision details: The passenger truck and private automobile attempted to pass each other on the narrow bridge; both drivers alleged the other failed to give way; excessive speed and inexperience of the minor driver contributed.
    • Injury to plaintiff: Narciso Gutierrez suffered a fractured right leg requiring prolonged medical treatment and potentially permanent lameness.
    • Concessions: The collision was “caused by negligence pure and simple.” No party disputed negligence, but each blamed the other side.
  • Procedural history
    • Trial court: Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment in plaintiff’s favor, awarding damages of ₱10,000.
    • Appeals: Both sets of defendants appealed the judgment—owners/chauffeur of the truck, and parents/driver of the automobile.

Issues:

  • Liability of defendants for plaintiff’s injuries
    • Are Manuel and Maria Gutierrez liable for the negligence of their son, Bonifacio?
    • Are Saturnino Cortez and Abelardo Velasco liable for the negligence of the truck’s chauffeur?
  • Contributory negligence
    • Did plaintiff’s alleged act of keeping his foot outside the truck constitute contributory negligence?
    • Was the defense of contributory negligence properly pleaded and supported by evidence?
  • Quantum of damages
    • Is the award of ₱10,000 excessive?
    • What amount would be fair and reasonable in light of medical expenses, injury severity, and comparative jurisprudence?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.