Case Digest (G.R. No. 139875)
Facts:
Gregorio Pestano and Metro Cebu Autobus Corporation v. Spouses Teotimo Sumayang and Paz C. Sumayang, G.R. No. 139875, April 22, 2002, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners are Gregorio Pestano (the bus driver) and Metro Cebu Autobus Corporation (the owner/operator); the respondents are spouses Teotimo and Paz Sumayang, suing as heirs of the deceased, Ananias Sumayang. On August 9, 1986, Ananias Sumayang and his companion Manuel Romagos were riding a motorcycle near the junction to Tabagon, Cebu, when a passenger bus driven by Pestano attempted to overtake and collided with the motorcycle; both motorcycle riders later died of their injuries. Criminal charges for double homicide were prosecuted against Pestano; the Sumayangs instituted a civil action for damages (Civil Case No. CEB-6108) against Pestano, Metro Cebu, and the insurer Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc.
The trial court conducted a joint trial of the criminal and civil actions after consolidation and found Pestano negligent for attempting to overtake at a junction; it held Metro Cebu vicariously liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code and awarded P30,000 for death indemnity, P829,079 for loss of earning capacity of Ananias, and P36,000 for interment expenses, with the insurer's liability limited to the policy amounts. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 30289 (Decision April 21, 1999; Resolution August 6, 1999 denying reconsideration) affirmed the finding of negligence, held Metro Cebu lax in supervision and maintenance (citing a defective speedometer), raised the death indemnity to P50,000 following prevailing jurisprudence, and affirmed computation of los...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in concluding that negligence in overtaking at the junction was the proximate cause of the accident under Section 45 of R.A. No. 4136?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in increasing the civil indemnity for death from P30,000 to P50,000?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in using the life expectancy of the deceased, rather than that of the heirs, as the basis for c...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)