Case Digest (G.R. No. 175512)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 175512)
Facts:
Vallacar Transit, Inc. v. Jocelyn Catubig, G.R. No. 175512, May 30, 2011, the Supreme Court First Division, Leonardo-De Castro, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Vallacar Transit, Inc. is the franchise owner of a Ceres Bulilit bus driven by regular employee Quirino C. Cabanilla. On January 27, 1994, respondent’s husband, Quintin Catubig, Jr., was riding a motorcycle with his employee Teddy Emperado when, while attempting to overtake a slow-moving ten-wheeler at a curve, their motorcycle collided with the Ceres bus; both occupants of the motorcycle died. Police investigation produced a sketch and photographs; the post-mortem confirmed fatal injuries.
Cabanilla was criminally charged with reckless imprudence resulting in double homicide before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Manjuyod-Bindoy-Ayungon; that court dismissed the criminal charge by Resolution dated December 22, 1994, finding no negligence on Cabanilla’s part. Respondent filed a civil Complaint for Damages on July 19, 1995 against Vallacar Transit under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code seeking actual, moral and exemplary damages. Petitioner answered, pleaded sole negligence of Catubig, and asserted as affirmative defenses lack of verification and exercise of due diligence in hiring and supervising Cabanilla.
At trial before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 30, Dumaguete City, witnesses for respondent included the investigating police officer (PO2 Robert Elnas), an eyewitness (Peter Cadimas), the medico-legal doctor (Dr. Norberto Baldado, Jr.), and respondent herself; documentary evidence included the police sketch, photographs and the post-mortem report. Petitioner presented testimony from its personnel manager (Nunally Maypa) about hiring and grievance procedures, the TSN and dismissal resolution from the MCTC, and minutes of its internal grievance proceeding. The RTC admitted all evidence and, on January 26, 2000, dismissed respondent’s complaint, finding Catubig’s reckless overtaking at a curve to be the proximate cause and that petitioner exercised due diligence in hiring and supervising its driver.
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 66815). In a Decision dated November 17, 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed and modified the RTC, holding that both Catubig and Cabanilla were negligent and awarding the heirs of Quintin Catubig, Jr. P250,000.00 as full compensation for death. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated November 16, 2006. Petitioner then filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in this Court, challenging (among other points) the sufficiency of verification of respondent’s complaint, the CA’s factual findings on negligence and imputed liability under Article 2180, and the CA’s award of damages.
Issues:
- Was respondent’s complaint fatally defective for lack of proper verification such that it should be dismissed?
- Did petitioner incur civil liability under Article 2180, in relation to Article 2176 of the Civil Code, for the deaths caused by the collision — i.e., was imputable negligence on Cabanilla established?
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly modify the RTC’s factual findings and award P250,000 to the heirs?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)