Case Digest (G.R. No. 197908)
Facts:
Visitacion R. Rebultan et al. v. Spouses Edmundo Daganta and Marvelyn P. Daganta, and Willie Viloria, G.R. No. 197908, July 04, 2018, Supreme Court First Division, Jardeleza, J., writing for the Court.On May 3, 1999, at about 6:30 a.m., along the National Highway in Barangay Mabanglit, Cabangan, Zambales, a southbound Isuzu passenger jeepney driven by Willie Viloria collided with a northbound Kia Ceres driven by Jaime Lomotos, carrying Cecilio Rebultan, Sr. as passenger. The impact caused serious injuries to Rebultan, Sr. and Lomotos; Rebultan, Sr., then aged 60, later died of his injuries.
On February 15, 2000, the heirs of Rebultan, Sr. (petitioners) sued Viloria and his employers, Spouses Edmundo and Marvelyn Daganta (respondents), for damages for death, loss of earning capacity, actual and moral damages, and attorney’s and appearance fees. Respondents answered, alleging negligence by the Kia Ceres driver and counterclaimed for repair costs, lost income, and fees. The spouses Daganta also filed a third-party complaint against Lomotos, which Lomotos denied and for which he filed a counterclaim.
After trial, Branch 70 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iba, Zambales rendered a decision dated July 24, 2008 finding Viloria negligent and the spouses Daganta vicariously liable; it awarded the heirs actual damages (P71,857.15), moral damages (P50,000.00), loss of earning capacity (P1,552,731.72) and attorney’s fees (P50,000.00), and dismissed the third-party complaint against Lomotos.
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) only as to the negligence finding against Viloria. In an April 26, 2011 decision (CA‑G.R. CV No. 92218) the CA reversed the RTC, dismissed the complaint, and held that Lomotos — not Viloria — was negligent, reasoning that under R.A. No. 4136, Sec. 42(a)–(b) and the Court’s decision in Caminos, Jr. v. People, the jeepney (Viloria) had the right of way; the CA also applied the presumption of negligence under Article 2185 of the Civil Code against Lomotos. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated July 20, 2011.
The petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, challenging the CA’s finding of no negligence on Viloria and urging that the evidence (traffic accident report, testimony and sketches) showe...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Court review the Court of Appeals’ contradictory factual findings under a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari?
- Was Willie Viloria negligent in the operation of the jeepney at the time of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)