Title
Cadiente vs. Macas
Case
G.R. No. 161946
Decision Date
Nov 14, 2008
A 15-year-old was severely injured by a Ford Fiera; the registered owner and subsequent seller were held jointly liable despite claims of sale, as the vehicle remained registered under the original owner.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 161946)

Facts of the Case

Eyewitness Rosalinda Palero reported that shortly after 4:00 PM, Respondent Macas was standing on the shoulder of the road when he was struck and run over by a Ford Fiera vehicle. Following the accident, Cimafranca transported the victim to Davao Medical Center, where orthopedic surgeon Dr. Hilario Diaz treated him for severe injuries, ultimately leading to the amputation of both of Macas's legs. The vehicle involved was registered in the name of Petitioner Cadiente, who claimed he had sold it two months prior to the accident.

Trial Court Proceedings

The victim's father subsequently filed a complaint for torts and damages against both Cimafranca and Cadiente. Cadiente then filed a third-party complaint against the alleged buyer, Engr. Rogelio Jalipa. After the trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled that both Cadiente and Jalipa were jointly and severally liable for the damages resulting from their negligence. The damages awarded included P300,000 for compensatory damages, P150,000 for moral damages, P18,982.85 for medical expenses, P30,000 for attorney's fees, and additional costs.

Court of Appeals Decision

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision, confirming the lower court's findings were consistent with the evidence presented. The appeal was denied, and the ruling regarding joint and several liability between Cadiente and Jalipa stood.

Supreme Court Appeal

Cadiente appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that the Court of Appeals made serious legal errors. He raised issues of contributory negligence on the part of the injured party and questioned the joint and several liability rulings against him and Jalipa.

Legal Standards and Consideration

The Supreme Court reiterated the principle of contributory negligence as outlined in Article 2179 of the Civil Code. The standard dictates that when a plaintiff’s negligence is a contributory factor, their potential recovery may be mitigated. However, if the plaintiff is found to be without negligence, the defendant remains entirely liable.

Determination of Contributory Negligence

The Court found that at the time of the accident, Macas was situated legally on the shoulder of the highway, designated for pedestrian use. Evidence indicated that Cimafranca's reckless driving—involving swerving onto the shoulder—was the proximate cause of the injuries. Thus, the Court rejected Petitioner’s argument of contributory negligence, concluding that the victim was not at fault for the accident.

Liability of Vehicle Owner

The

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.