Case Summary (G.R. No. 233767)
Key Dates
Collision: August 11, 1978. Trial proceedings and testimony referenced at trial dates (e.g., October 4, 1979). Appellate decision under review: November 14, 1988.
Applicable Law
Civil Code provisions relied upon by the appellate court: Articles 1733, 1755, 1756, 1759, 2165, and 2176. The decision was rendered under the constitutional framework in force at the time of decision.
Facts
While negotiating an ascending curved bend of the highway traversing Barangay Isabong, Tayabas, Quezon, BLTB Bus No. 1046 attempted to overtake a Ford Fiera. As Superlines Bus No. 404 approached from the opposite direction, BLTB’s driver made a belated attempt to reduce speed and return to his lane, but the attempt failed and the two buses collided. The collision resulted in the deaths of Aniceto Rosales, Francisco Pamfilo and Romeo Neri, and injuries to Nena Rosales and Baylon Sales, all passengers of BLTB Bus No. 1046.
Procedural History
Surviving passengers and heirs instituted separate civil actions in the Court of First Instance of Marinduque against BLTB and Superlines and their drivers for damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs, allegedly based on tort (culpa aquiliana). Criminal cases against the two drivers were filed separately in the Court of First Instance of Quezon. The trial court found Superlines and its driver Dasco not liable, and attributed sole responsibility to BLTB and its driver Pon, ordering them jointly and severally to pay damages. BLTB and Pon appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court, which affirmed the lower court’s judgment with the modification that death indemnity was raised to P30,000 for each set of victims’ heirs. BLTB then filed a petition for certiorari alleging a single error: that the appellate court erred in adjudging that private respondents’ actions were based on culpa contractual (contract of carriage).
Issue Presented
Whether the appellate court erred in characterizing the private respondents’ actions (filed as tort) as being based on culpa contractual, thereby imposing contractual standards of liability on BLTB for injuries and deaths of its passengers.
Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s judgment. It concluded that the proximate cause of the collision was the sole negligence of BLTB’s driver in recklessly overtaking in a no-overtaking zone, thereby binding BLTB to liability. The appellate court’s imposition of liability on BLTB was sustained, as was the modification raising the death indemnity to P30,000 per set of heirs.
Reasoning — Driver Negligence and Evidence
The appellate court found patent imprudence on the part of BLTB’s driver. The road at the curve was divided by a continuous yellow strip, which the driver himself admitted in cross-examination signified a no-overtaking zone. The court applied established rules that a driver attempting to overtake must ascertain that the road is clear and must not proceed if safe passage cannot be made; if an overtaking attempt cannot be completed safely, the driver must slacken speed or stop. The special necessity for keeping to the right when approaching or rounding a curve was emphasized. The appellate court also invoked the presumption under Article 2165 of the Civil Code that violation of a traffic regulation gives rise to a presumption of negligence, absent proof to the contrary. Given these facts, the driver’s act of overtaking on a curve where overtaking was prohibited constituted negligence that was the proximate cause of the accident.
Reasoning — Carrier and Employer Liability
The appellate court anchored BLTB’s liability on two legal bases reflected in the record: (1) culpa aquiliana (quasi-delict) for the driver’s negligence (Article 2176), and (2) contractual liability as a common carrier for the safety of its passengers under Articles 1755 and 1756 of the Civil Code. The court explained that a common carrier has an express contractual obligation to convey passengers safely and must exercise the utmost diligence of very cautious persons; carriers are presumed negligent unless they prove extraordinary diligence. Because BLTB failed to show such extraordinary diligence and the driver’s negligence was established, BLTB was directly and primarily liable. The court further noted that the employer’s liability for injuries to passengers due to the negligence of its employee does not cease even if the employer exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in selection and supervision of employees (Article 1759). The decision emphasized that a carrier’s contractual liability and the driver’s tortious liability can coexist and be enforced solidarily.
Petitioners’ Argument and Court’s Response
Petitioners argued that private respondents had pleaded culpa aquiliana (tort) and not culpa contractual, and that the appellate court erred in adjudging the action
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 233767)
Procedural History
- Petition to Review by Certiorari filed before the Supreme Court assailing the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) which affirmed with modification the joint decision of the Court of First Instance (trial court) in four separate but factually similar cases.
- Trial court action: four separate complaints by passengers and heirs of passengers against Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (BLTB), Superlines Transportation Company (Superlines), and drivers Armando Pon (BLTB) and Ruben Dasco (Superlines) for damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs; criminal cases against the two drivers were filed in the Court of First Instance of Quezon.
- Trial court rendered judgment exonerating Superlines and its driver Dasco and attributing sole responsibility to BLTB and driver Armando Pon, ordering them jointly and severally to pay damages to the plaintiffs.
- Defendants BLTB and Armando Pon appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court which affirmed the trial court’s judgment with modification: the death indemnity was raised to P30,000.00 to each set of the victims’ heirs; costs were imposed against the defendants-appellants.
- BLTB filed a petition to the Supreme Court assigning a single error: that the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in adjudging that the actions of private respondents are based on culpa contractual (breach of contract of carriage).
- The Supreme Court, through Justice Paras (opinion), considered the petition and affirmed the appealed decision.
Antecedent Facts (as found in the records)
- Date and place of collision: afternoon of August 11, 1978, on the highway traversing Barangay Isabong, Tayabas, Quezon.
- Vehicles involved: BLTB Bus No. 1046 driven by Armando Pon and Superlines Bus No. 404 driven by Ruben Dasco; a Ford Fiera car was ahead of BLTB Bus No. 1046.
- Victims and injured parties: deaths of Aniceto Rosales, Francisco Pamfilo and Romeo Neri; injuries to Nena Rosales (wife of Aniceto) and Baylon Sales; all deceased and injured were passengers of BLTB Bus No. 1046.
- Mechanism of collision: BLTB Bus No. 1046, negotiating an ascending bend of the highway, attempted to overtake the Ford Fiera; Superlines Bus No. 404 was approaching from the opposite direction; BLTB driver made a belated attempt to slow down and return to proper lane but the attempt failed and the two buses collided.
- Road marking and conditions: the ascending bend of the highway was divided into two lanes by a continuous yellow strip; BLTB driver admitted in cross-examination that the continuous yellow line signifies a no-overtaking zone.
Parties
- Petitioners: Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (BLTB) and Armando Pon (driver of BLTB Bus No. 1046).
- Co-defendant at trial: Superlines Transportation Company and its driver Ruben Dasco (exonerated at trial).
- Private respondents / plaintiffs: The heirs of Paz Vda. de Pamfilo, the heirs of Norma Neri, Baylon Sales, and Nena Vda. de Rosales (and surviving heirs of the deceased victims).
- Appellate court panel authorship noted: the IAC decision was penned by Justice Crisolito Pascual, concurred in by Justices Jose C. Campos, Jr., Serafin E. Camilon and Desiderio P. Jurado.
- Supreme Court panel: decision authored by Justice Paras; final affirmance signed by Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Padilla, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., who concurred.
Claims and Defenses Presented
- Plaintiffs’ claims: actions for damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs based on culpa aquiliana (tort/quasi-delict) as alleged in trial court filings.
- Defendants’ denials and defenses: BLTB, Superlines, and drivers denied liability asserting they exercised due care and diligence; they shifted fault against each other; asserted counterclaims against plaintiffs and crossclaims against each other.
- Specific petitioners’ contention on certiorari: IAC erred in adjudging plaintiffs’ actions to be based on culpa contractual; petitioners argued that if plaintiffs intended to sue on culpa contractual (contract of carriage), they could have done so by merely impleading BLTB and its driver.
- Petitioners’ additional contention rejected by the Court: common carrier is not an absolute insurer and is not liable for unforeseeable or inevitable acts/accidents; responsibility under Articles 1733 and 1755 was argued to lack precise formulation.
Trial Court Findings
- Trial court found Superlines and driver Ruben Dasco not liable.
- Trial court attributed sole responsibility to BLTB and its driver Armando Pon for the collision and resultant deaths and injuries.
- Trial court ordered BLTB and Armando Pon to pay damages to