Case Summary (G.R. No. 144723)
Procedural History
Respondent Noe filed Civil Case No. 8122 before the RTC of Dumaguete (February 18, 1993 judgment). The RTC found petitioner and his driver jointly liable and awarded P129,584.20 (medical/hospitalization), P50,000 (moral damages), P10,000 (attorney’s fees), and P5,000 (litigation expenses). Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC decision (April 17, 2000) and denied reconsideration (August 16, 2000). Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether petitioner exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in selecting and supervising his driver and in maintaining the truck in roadworthy condition.
- Whether the CA erred in not finding petitioner’s exercise of due diligence.
- Whether the CA erred in exonerating respondents Bandoquillo and Quinquillera (owner and driver of the Fiera).
Petitioner also argued contributory negligence of the Fiera driver and passenger overloading as causes of the mishap.
Trial Court Findings
The RTC concluded that (a) the proximate cause of the accident was the reckless imprudence and gross negligence of Gerosano (truck driver), (b) the truck had faulty brakes and was speeding (48-foot skid mark), (c) petitioner was negligent in vehicle maintenance and in the selection/supervision of his driver, and (d) petitioner and his driver were solidarily liable under Article 2180. The RTC dismissed the third-party complaint against the Fiera owner/driver.
Appellate Court Ruling
The CA affirmed the RTC in toto, adopting its findings on the truck driver’s negligence, the truck’s defective brakes, and petitioner’s employer liability. The CA did not uphold the third-party claims against the Fiera owner and driver.
Standard of Review Adopted by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated its limited role in reviewing questions of fact on certiorari: factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are generally final and conclusive. The Court listed recognized exceptions permitting review (e.g., manifestly mistaken inferences, grave abuse of discretion, findings grounded on speculation, misapprehension of facts, overlooked undisputed facts, conclusions without citation of specific evidence, etc.). The Court found the circumstances here justified examining the factual determinations to align findings with the record.
Supreme Court Findings on Truck Driver’s Negligence and Vehicle Condition
The Court found substantial and credible evidence supporting the lower courts’ conclusion that Gerosano was negligent: his testimony about vehicle speed and proximity to the Fiera (approximately 10 meters) gave him sufficient time to avoid the collision; the long skid mark (48 feet) and post-accident vehicle damage supported a finding of excessive speed; and the presence of a single tire mark, as testified by the police investigator, indicated misaligned or faulty brakes. Petitioner’s explanations (road angle, cargo balance) were not substantiated. The truck’s brakes therefore were a proximate cause together with the driver’s imprudence.
Contributory Negligence of the Injured Passenger
The Supreme Court held that Respondent Noe was guilty of contributory negligence by voluntarily standing on the rear carrier of the moving Fiera. Standing on the running board or carrier while the vehicle is in motion is dangerous and below the standard of ordinary care. Respondent Noe’s own negligent conduct contributed to his injury, thereby triggering Article 2179’s rule on mitigation of damages for contributory negligence.
Negligence of the Fiera Driver and Owner
The Court found merit in petitioner’s contention that the Fiera driver, Quinquillera, was negligent. The Fiera was overloaded, forcing passengers (including Respondent Noe) to stand on the rear carrier, which violates safety and traffic rules (Section 32(c), RA 4136). Quinquillera’s allowance of passengers to ride on running boards or carriers created undue risk, and that negligence gave rise to a presumption of negligence in the owner, Bandoquillo, in supervision and selection. Because Bandoquillo did not rebut this presumption, the Court concluded that the third-party complaint against the Fiera owner and driver should not have been dismissed.
Employer Liability and Diligence of a Good Father of a Family
Applying Article 2180, the Court emphasized that employer liability for employees’ torts acting within the scope of their duties is presumed (juris tantum) and can be overcome only by showing that the employer observed “all the diligence of a good father of a family” in selection and supervision. Petitioner failed to rebut the presumption: he did not present documentary proof of driver qualifications, driving history, or proof of thorough screening; Gerosano was accepted the day he applied, had license issued in Mindanao without records produced, and petitioner produced no evidence of systematic supervision (training programs, periodic safety seminars) or a documented pre-trip mechanical inspection. The mechanic’s oral testimony of a routine check one day before the accident lacked documentary support. Consequently, petitioner did not satisfy the Article 2180 defense.
Evidence on Roadworthiness and Maintenance
The record supported defective braking as a causative factor (single skid mark, investigator testimony). Petitioner’s claim that routine maintenance and checks were performed was not
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 144723)
Facts of the Case
- Date, route and vehicles involved: On the afternoon of October 16, 1982, respondent Noe Bernardo (hereafter “Noe”) was returning to Dumaguete from Cebu via Bato and Tampi. At Tampi he boarded a Ford Fiera passenger jeepney (plate no. NLD 720) driven by respondent Geminiano Quinquillera and owned by respondent Cecilia Bandoquillo. Petitioner Larry Estacion owned an Isuzu cargo truck driven by Bienvenido Gerosano.
- Noe’s position on the Fiera: Noe initially sat on an extension seat at the center of the Fiera. When an old woman wanted to board at San Jose, Noe offered his seat. Because the Fiera was already full, he stood or hung on the left rear carrier (running board/rear portion) of the Fiera.
- The collision: Somewhere along Barangay Sto. Nino, San Jose, Negros Oriental, between kilometers 13 and 14, the Fiera slowed and stopped by the right shoulder to pick up passengers. The cargo truck, traveling in the same direction, hit the rear end/left rear portion of the Fiera where Noe was standing. The cargo truck’s force smashed Noe against the Fiera, crushing his legs and feet and causing him to fall to the ground.
- Injuries and emergency treatment: A passing vehicle brought Noe to Silliman University Medical Center, where his lower left leg was amputated. Police reports showed Noe was one of 11 passengers who suffered injuries.
- Physical and investigatory evidence: Police investigator Mateo Rubia drew a sketch showing the relative positions of the two vehicles, their distances from the road shoulder, and a skid mark of the right front wheel of the cargo truck measuring about 48 feet. Only one tire mark from the truck’s front right wheel was seen on the road. Photographs taken after the incident and the extent of truck damage (broken windshield, damaged hood) were part of the record.
Procedural History
- Criminal proceeding: Driver Gerosano was criminally charged before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Pamplona-Amlan and San Jose, Negros Oriental for reckless imprudence resulting in multiple physical injuries with damage to property. On November 16, 1987, the MCTC found him guilty and sentenced him to four months and one day to two years and four months and to pay the costs.
- Civil complaint: On February 18, 1993, Noe, through his guardian ad litem Arlie Bernardo, filed Civil Case No. 8122 in the RTC of Dumaguete City against Estacion (registered owner of the cargo truck) and Gerosano for damages arising from quasi-delict, claiming reckless imprudence, negligent selection and supervision of driver, and maintenance of an unroadworthy vehicle. Reliefs prayed for included actual damages, loss of income, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs.
- Defendants’ pleadings and third-party complaint: Petitioner Estacion and Gerosano denied material allegations and filed a third-party complaint against Bandoquillo and Quinquillera (owner and driver of the Fiera), alleging their reckless imprudence and seeking indemnification. Bandoquillo and Quinquillera answered the third-party complaint and sought its dismissal and attorney’s fees.
- RTC decision (February 18, 1993): The RTC ruled Gerosano negligent and found petitioner negligent in selection/supervision and in maintaining a roadworthy vehicle. The RTC ordered Gerosano and Estacion, jointly or solidarily, to pay P129,584.20 (actual damages for medical/hospitalization), P50,000.00 (moral damages), P10,000.00 (attorney’s fees), and P5,000.00 (litigation expenses). The RTC dismissed the third-party complaint against Bandoquillo and Quinquillera.
- Court of Appeals (CA) decision (April 17, 2000) and denial of reconsideration (August 16, 2000): The CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. Petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court contesting the CA decision and the denial of reconsideration.
Issues Presented by Petitioner
- Whether petitioner exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage, particularly in selection/supervision of his employee and in keeping the cargo truck roadworthy.
- Whether the CA erred in not finding petitioner exercised due diligence in selection and supervision of his employee and in maintaining the truck.
- Whether the CA erred in exonerating respondents Bandoquillo and Quinquillera (Fiera owner and driver).
Contentions of the Parties (as presented in the record)
- Petitioner’s contentions:
- He exercised diligence in selecting and supervising Gerosano (required driver’s license, accompanied driver on first two trips to ascertain competence, truck had no prior accidents, truck was reconditioned when acquired in March 1982, and a mechanic conducted periodic check-ups).
- The Fiera driver Quinquillera was negligent: the Fiera overtook the cargo truck on a curve and suddenly cut into the truck’s lane; the Fiera stopped immediately after overtaking to pick up passengers, and overloading obstructed the Fiera’s brake lights, preventing Gerosano from seeing them.
- Noe’s act of standing on the rear carrier was negligent and the negligence of Quinquillera and/or owner Bandoquillo should be considered in apportioning liability under Article 2179.
- Respondent Noe’s contentions:
- The issues concerning negligence are factual and thus beyond the proper scope of a petition for review on certiorari.
- Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of negligence and is liable for the negligence of his driver.
- The third issue (liability of Bandoquillo and Quinquillera) should be addressed by those respondents.
Trial Court Findings and Rationale
- Trial court’s core findings:
- The proximate cause of Noe’s injuries was the reckless imprudence and negligence of Gerosano, who drove at a fast speed with faulty brakes.
- Gerosano’s gross negligence and reckless imprudence were confirmed by his criminal conviction in Criminal Case No. 463.
- Police findings: a single tire mark of the truck measuring 48 feet indicated speeding and faulty brakes (one mark meant brakes were not aligned; otherwise two tire marks would be produced).
- Photographs corroborated the guilty party.
- Legal conclusions:
- Petitioner was negligent in maintaining his vehicle in good condition and in negligent selection and supervision of his driver.
- Petitioner liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code for acts of his employee; petitioner and Gerosano solidarily liable.
- The third-party complaint against Bandoquillo and Quinquillera was dismissed.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- The CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto on April 17, 2000, thereby affirming findings of negligence against Gerosano and petitioner and the award of damages by the trial court.
- The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated August 16, 2000.
Standard of Review and Exceptions to Finality of Factual Findings
- General rule reiterated: factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive and not reviewable on appeal; Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari is limited to errors of law.
- Enumerated exceptions permitting Supreme Court review of factual findings (drawn from the record): include manifestly mistaken inferences, grave abuse of discretion, findings grounded on speculation, judgments based on misapprehension of facts, conflicting findings, findings beyond issues or contrary to admissions, conclusions without citation of specific evidence, overlooking relevant uncontested facts, or findings premised on absence of evidence contradicted by record.
- The Supreme Court found cogent reasons to treat this case as fall