G.R. No. 159270 - Philippine National Construction Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

PASUDECO, a sugarcane transporter from Mabalacat and Magalang, Pampanga, operated in an environment affected by the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption, which rendered key national bridges impassable.
In response to the damaged bridges along the Abacan-Angeles and Sapang Maragul via Magalang routes, PASUDECO sought permission from the Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) for its trucks to use the North Luzon Expressway (NLEX) as an alternative route.
The TRB forwarded the request to the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC), the franchisee responsible for operating and maintaining the toll facilities on NLEX, for comment.
On November 5, 1991, the TRB and PASUDECO executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) setting forth specific terms and conditions allowing PASUDECO trucks to traverse NLEX.

Terms included movement in convoy, keeping to the right lane, assigning a vehicle with blinking lights to signal “Caution: CONVOY AHEAD!!!”, and strict adherence to tollway safety measures.
The MOA also stipulated that any accidents or damage to the toll facilities arising from the approved activity were to be the responsibility of PASUDECO and that such permission was valid only while the national bridges remained impassable.

PASUDECO provided the PNCC with a copy of the MOA, and on October 22, 1992, PNCC indicated it had no objection to its provisions.

At approximately 2:30 a.m., PNCC security personnel (Alex Sendin, Eduardo Ducusin, and Vicente Pascual) patrolling Km. 72 of the NLEX observed a pile of sugarcane obstructing the lanes.
The security team placed lit diesel-oiled cans along the lanes and on lane dividers with reflectorized markings to alert motorists of the obstruction.
Believing the sugarcane pile to be connected with PASUDECO – the only milling company in the area – they proceeded to the PASUDECO office to report the incident and request equipment to clear the obstruction.
PASUDECO’s equipment supervisor, Engineer Oscar Mallari, acknowledged the situation, admitted the unavailability of an operator at that early hour, but promised to send help.
At around 4:00 a.m., PASUDECO men arrived and began clearing the highway by stacking the spilled sugarcane to the roadside; however, some flattened stalks remained scattered after their departure around 5:40 a.m.
As dawn approached, the PNCC personnel removed the warning devices, mistakenly believing the highway to be cleared.

At approximately 6:30 a.m., Rodrigo S. Arnaiz, driving his Toyota Corolla alongside his sister Regina Latagan and friend Ricardo Generalao, was traveling along the NLEX at roughly 65 kilometers per hour.
When Arnaiz’s car encountered the scattered sugarcane remnants – including pieces flattened on the roadway – the vehicle lost control, turning turtle multiple times, and coming to rest approximately fifteen paces away from the scene.
A police investigation by Demetrio Arcilla found flattened sugarcane on both the north and southbound lanes, confirming the presence of debris that contributed to the accident.

On March 4, 1993, Arnaiz, Latagan, and Generalao instituted a complaint for damages in the RTC of Manila (Civil Case No. 93-64803) against PASUDECO and PNCC.
The plaintiffs alleged that PNCC was negligent in maintaining the NLEX in a safe condition by allowing sugarcane-loaded trucks to traverse the highway and failing to maintain essential warning devices once the sugarcane had been spilled.
They further accused PASUDECO of gross negligence in spilling the sugarcane and not completely clearing the roadway, thereby directly causing the accident and ensuing injuries.
The relief prayed included monetary awards for the total loss of Arnaiz’s car, reimbursement of medical expenses, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

In its Answer, PNCC admitted its contractual duty to maintain the NLEX but argued that the accident was due to Arnaiz’s “unreasonable speed” and noted the contributory negligence on his part. It also counterclaimed and cross-claimed against the plaintiffs and PASUDECO respectively.
PASUDECO presented evidence that more than one sugarcane mill operated in the area, suggesting that the responsibility to clear spillages did not exclusively lie with them.
On November 11, 1994, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of Regina Latagan, awarding damages against PASUDECO while dismissing claims against PNCC and those of Arnaiz and Generalao for insufficiency of evidence.
Both the plaintiffs (with the partial exception of Latagan) and PASUDECO appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA, on April 29, 2003, modified the lower court’s decision by holding both PASUDECO and PNCC jointly and severally liable for Latagan’s injuries, noting that PASUDECO’s failure to supervise its workers and PNCC’s premature removal of warning devices constituted successive negligent acts.
PNCC subsequently filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, arguing that liability should rest solely on PASUDECO pursuant to the MOA and asserting that Arnaiz’s recklessness was the proximate cause of the accident.

PNCC’s petition contested the modification of the RTC’s decision by the CA, maintaining that the MOA clearly imposed responsibility on PASUDECO for damages relating to the sugarcane spillage.
The petitioner argued that it had discharged its obligation by clearing the expressway of obstructing sugarcane piles and that any damages should stem from PASUDECO’s negligence.
PNCC also shifted its theory by claiming that the proximate cause of the mishap was Arnaiz’s reckless driving, notwithstanding its earlier acknowledgment of his contributory negligence.
The Court of Appeals, and ultimately the Supreme Court, observed that factual issues were being raised in the petition – a misstep given that only questions of law could be considered under Rule 45.
After reviewing the record, the petition was found to be lacking in merit and contrary to established procedural and substantive law.

Whether PNCC, as the franchisee responsible for operating and maintaining the NLEX, failed in its duty to exercise reasonable care in keeping the highway safe for motorists.
Whether PASUDECO’s conduct in transporting sugarcane—including the spillage and its inadequate supervision of the clearing process—constituted negligence.
Whether the concurrent negligent acts of PASUDECO and PNCC, occurring in succession, amount to a proximate cause of the accident under the doctrine of quasi-delict.
Whether joint and several liability applies when multiple parties contribute to the accident, especially considering the difficulty in apportioning their relative degrees of negligence.
Whether the tribunal properly considered the contributory negligence of the driver, Rodrigo Arnaiz, particularly in light of his driving speed and the changing of legal theory by PNCC regarding his role in causing the accident.
Whether PNCC is relieved from liability by virtue of a private agreement between TRB and PASUDECO (the MOA) that did not extend to third parties such as Regina Latagan, who was not a party to the MOA.