G.R. No. L-21353 - Anuran vs. Buno

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-21353)

Factual Background

At noon a passenger jeepney owned by spouses Pedro Gahol and Luisa Alcantara and driven by their regular driver Pepito Buno was on its regular route toward the poblacion of Taal, Batangas. The jeepney was overloaded beyond its stipulated maximum capacity of eleven passengers including the driver. After crossing a bridge the driver stopped to allow a passenger to alight and parked with the left wheels on the asphalted pavement and the right wheels on the shoulder. Approximately five minutes later a speeding water truck owned by spouses Anselmo Maligaya and Ceferina Aro and driven by Guillermo Itazon struck the parked jeepney from behind with such violence that three passengers were killed and two others suffered injuries requiring extended hospitalization.

Trial Court Proceedings

In February 1958 representatives of the deceased and of the injured instituted suits for consequential damages against both the truck and the jeepney drivers and owners. The Court of First Instance of Batangas, after trial, absolved the driver Pepito Buno and the owners Pedro Gahol and Luisa Alcantara of liability, but held the truck driver and the truck owners liable and ordered indemnity in specified amounts.

Court of Appeals Ruling

Upon appeal the Court of Appeals found that the jeepney was overloaded and that its driver had been at fault in parking partially on the paved portion of the road. The Court of Appeals nevertheless affirmed the exoneration of the jeepney driver and owners, reasoning that the truck driver had been guilty of greater negligence and that his negligence constituted the efficient cause of the collision. Applying the doctrine of the last clear chance, the Court of Appeals ordered the truck owners and their driver to pay damages in the amounts fixed by the judgment under review, namely sums awarded for death, moral damages, loss of earning capacity, and actual damages as set forth in the appealed decision.

Petition for Review and Issue Presented

The plaintiffs-petitioners brought the case to the Supreme Court contending that the driver Pepito Buno and the owners Pedro Gahol and Luisa Alcantara of the jeepney should likewise be held liable to their passengers. The Supreme Court gave due course to the petition because the appellate disposition appeared to permit exoneration of a carrier from liability to its passengers despite a finding of negligence by the carrier's driver.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision under review insofar as it imposed the monetary awards fixed by the Court of Appeals but modified that decision to declare the jeepney driver Pepito Buno and the jeepney owners Pedro Gahol and Luisa Alcantara jointly and severally liable with the other defendants for the amounts fixed. The Court ordered that the three jeepney defendants pay solidarily with the other defendants the sums previously assessed and that the costs of both appeals be imposed against those three defendants.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court observed that the obligation of a carrier to transport passengers safely required utmost diligence under Act. 1755 and that carriers were presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently unless they proved that they had observed extraordinary diligence under Art. 1756. The Court found that the Court of Appeals had itself determined that the jeepney driver had been at fault in parking improperly, and that this finding confirmed the legal presumption of negligence against the carrier. The Court explained that the doctrine of the last clear chance was applicable in actions between tortfeasors and did not arise where a passenger enforces the carrier's contractual obligation. It held that it would be inequitable to exempt a negligent carrier and its owners from contractual liability to passengers on the ground that the other motorist was also negligent.

Disposition and Damages

Because the truck defendants did not appeal the assessment against them and because the plaintiffs did not seek an increase in the indemnity, the Supreme Court left intact the monetary awards as assessed by the Court of Appeals.

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-21353)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioners were the representatives of three deceased passengers and of two injured passengers who instituted suits for consequential damages in February 1958.
Respondents included Pepito Buno as driver and Pedro Gahol and Luisa Alcantara as owners of the jeepney, and Anselmo Maligaya and Ceferina Aro as owners with Guillermo Razon as driver of the truck.
The trial court rendered judgment absolving the jeepney driver and owners and held the truck driver and owners liable for damages.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals contesting the exonera tion of the jeepney driver and owners.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court as to the jeepney defendants and ordered the truck defendants to pay specified damages.
The plaintiffs filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court seeking liability of the jeepney driver and owners as jointly and severally liable with the truck defendants.

Key Factual Allegations

The collision occurred at about noon when a parked passenger jeepney was struck from behind by a speeding motor truck, causing the jeepney to overturn into a ditch.
The Supreme Court record describes the accident as occurring at noon of January 12, 1958, while the Court of Appeals' findings described it as about noon on January 13, 1958.
The jeepney bearing plate No. TPU-13548 was on its regular route and, according to testimony, carried fourteen or sixteen passengers while its maximum capacity was stipulated as eleven including the driver.
The jeepney driver stopped and parked with one-half of the jeepney on the asphalted pavement and the other half on the right shoulder to allow a passenger to alight.
The truck bearing plate No. T-17526 was driven at speed from the same direction and violently crashed into the parked jeepney from behind.

Issues

Whether the driver and owners of the jeepney were liable to their passengers for injuries and deaths resulting from the collision notwithstanding the negligence of the truck driver.
Whether the doctrine of the last clear chance justified exoneration of the carrier-defendants from passenger claims.
Whether the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals required modification.

Contentions of the Parties

The petitioners contended that Pepito Buno, Pedro Gahol, and Luisa Alcantara should be declared jointly and severally liable with the truck defendants because the jeepney driver was negligent in parking and the carrier owed passengers a duty of utmost diligence.
The je