Case Digest (G.R. No. 199282)
Facts:
Travel & Tours Advisers, Incorporated v. Alberto Cruz, Sr., Edgar Hernandez and Virginia Munoz, G.R. No. 199282, March 14, 2016, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.On January 9, 1998 at about 7:50 p.m., an Isuzu passenger jeepney (plate DSG-944) owned and driven by respondent Edgar Hernandez and a Daewoo passenger bus (RCJ Bus Lines, plate NXM-116) owned by petitioner Travel & Tours Advisers, Inc. and driven by its employee Edgar Calaycay were travelling in the same direction along Angeles–Magalang Road, Barangay San Francisco, Magalang, Pampanga. The bus struck the left rear portion of the jeepney, which then rammed into an acacia tree; Alberto Cruz, Jr. died and Virginia Munoz sustained serious injuries.
Respondents Edgar Hernandez (jeepney owner/driver), Virginia Munoz (injured passenger) and Alberto Cruz, Sr. (father and heir of the deceased) filed Civil Case No. 9006 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Angeles City, alleging negligent driving by Calaycay and seeking damages (actual, moral/compensatory, loss of earnings, attorney’s fees and litigation costs). Petitioner answered, blaming the jeepney driver for reckless entry into the bus’s lane, asserting the jeepney was out of its authorized route and overloaded, and pleading that it exercised due diligence in hiring and supervising its driver.
After trial, the RTC (Judge Bernardita Gabitan Erum) rendered judgment on January 30, 2008, holding Calaycay and petitioner jointly and solidarily liable and awarding specified amounts to the respective plaintiffs. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., dated May 16, 2011 (with Resolution dated November 10, 2011), affirmed the RTC with modifications—adjusting several awards and retaining attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner then sought review by the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 dated December 28, 2011, cha...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May this Court disturb the Court of Appeals’ factual findings in a Rule 45 petition?
- Was the petitioner’s bus the proximate cause of the collision (i.e., was its driver negligent)?
- Did the presence of the deceased on the jeepney’s running board or alleged overloading establish sole or primary negligence of the jeepney/its driver?
- Did petitioner prove it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its driver so as to escape employer liability under Article 2180?
- Are the awards of damages (actual damages, loss of earning capacity, moral damages, attorney’s fees and costs) supported and,...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)