G.R. No. L-12245 - Francisco vs. De La Serna

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-12245)

Factual Background

Francisco alleged that while she was embarked in a truck operated by Carmelino de la Serna, the truck met with an accident or collided with a truck owned by Southern Motors, Inc., resulting in physical injuries.

After trial, the court a quo found that the truck of de la Serna was already at a complete stop when another truck, identified by plate number A-659 and driven by Vicente Fernandez, zig-zagged along and then hit the front part of the stopped truck where Francisco was riding.

The trial court further found that the plate A-659 was issued to Southern Motors, Inc. in 1956. It also found that the truck bearing that plate was sold by Southern Motors, Inc. to Roberto Bolneo on an installment basis, and that Bolneo thereafter mortgaged the truck to Southern Motors, Inc. as security for the unpaid balance of the purchase price.

Trial Court Proceedings and Disposition

The court a quo ruled that Bolneo owned the truck bearing plate A-659 and that he was the employer of Vicente Fernandez, the driver at the time of the collision. On that basis, the court dismissed the action as to Southern Motors, Inc., concluding that the company was not the owner of the vehicle involved in the collision.

As to Carmelino de la Serna, the court relied on Lasam vs. Smith and Gillaco vs. Manila Railroad Co. to hold that a carrier is responsible only in cases where it or its employees fail to exercise reasonable diligence. Since the trial court had found that the truck of de la Serna was parked and was struck, it held that de la Serna could not be held responsible.

Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the action in its entirety.

The Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

On appeal, Francisco assailed the dismissal as to Southern Motors, Inc. She argued that at the time of the accident the truck bearing plate A-659 was legally owned by Southern Motors, Inc., and thus the company should be liable to her as a carrier-related defendant for the damages claimed.

Southern Motors, Inc., through its position at trial and as upheld by the court a quo, maintained that it was not the owner of the truck at the time of the collision because it had already been sold and ownership had passed to the vendee.

Legal Basis and Reasoning of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court rejected Francisco’s contention. It found that the trial court’s conclusions were supported by the documentary evidence submitted below. The Court noted that the truck in question, although bearing plate A-659, was sold by Southern Motors, Inc., Bacolod Branch, to Roberto Bolneo on August 8, 1955 (Annex “A” attached to the Answer). On that same date, Bolneo mortgaged the truck to Southern Motors, Inc. as security for the balance of the purchase price (Annex “B” attached to the Answer).

The Court also found that Southern Motors, Inc. reported the sale to the Motor Vehicles Office on August 31, 1955, but Bolneo failed to register the vehicle in his name and continued to use the vendor’s plate.

Francisco invoked Supreme Court decisions holding that the registered owner of a certificate of public convenience may be liable for injuries suffered by passengers even after transfer of ownership to third persons. The Supreme Court acknowledged those cases, citing Montoya vs. Ignacio, Roque vs. MaHbay Transit, Inc., Vda. de Medina vs. Cresencia, and Rayos vs. Aquino, including the related decision Rayos vs. Tamayo.

The Court, however, held that those decisions were not applicable to Francisco’s case because Southern Motors, Inc. was not the owner of the truck. It emphasized the distinction between the legal effect of registration in contexts involving certificates of public convenience, and the vendor’s liability where ownership has already been transferred and the continued use of the dealer’s plate results from the purchaser’s noncompliance.

In applying the Revised Motor Vehicle Law, the Court explained that under Act No. 3992 the vendee was required to register the motor vehicle purchased (Sec. 5[a] and Sec. 6[a], Act No. 3992) and was prohibited from displaying the dealer’s plate number on the truck (Sec. 20, Act No. 3992). The Court observed that Bolneo nonetheless continued using the dealer’s plate number and did not register the vehicle in his name.

The Supreme Court ruled that Bolneo’s failure to register and secure a plate for himself—constituting a clear violation of Act No. 3992—was attributable to Bolneo alone. It held that this circumstance could not justify holding Southern Motors, Inc. liable, because the company had already ceased to be the owner and had complied with the law regarding registration.

Regarding Carmelino de la Serna, the Supreme Court found no reversible error in the trial court’s application of the doctrine from Lasam vs. Smith and Gillaco vs. Manila Railroad Co. It agreed that since the court a quo found that de la Serna’s truck was at a complete stop when struck, the carrier could not be held responsible absent the showing of lack of reasonable diligence.

Disposition and Doctrinal Takeaway

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the action against both defendant-appellees. It held that Southern Motors, Inc. could not be held liable merely because

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-12245)

The case reached the Supreme Court on an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, dismissing a civil action for damages.
The plaintiff-appellant sought P5,000 for breach of contract of carriage, after alleging that she sustained injuries during a collision involving the truck she was riding.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Felicidad Francisco filed the complaint as plaintiff-appellant against Carmelino de la Serna and Southern Motors, Inc. as defendants-appellees.
The trial court, Hon. Jose F. Fernandez, dismissed the action after trial.
On appeal, Francisco assailed only the dismissal as to Southern Motors, Inc., asserting that the truck was legally owned by that defendant at the time of the accident.

Key Factual Allegations

Francisco alleged that, while she was embarked in a truck operated by Carmelino de la Serna, the truck met with an accident or collided with a truck owned by Southern Motors, Inc..
Francisco claimed that the collision caused her physical injuries.
The complaint framed the action as one for breach of contract of carriage, anchored on the relationship between passenger and carrier.

Trial Court Findings

The trial court found that the truck of Carmelino de la Serna was already at a complete stop when another truck struck it.
The striking truck was described as bearing plate No. A-659 and driven by Vicente Fernandez.
The trial court found that plate No. A-659 was issued to Southern Motors, Inc. in 1956.
The trial court found that the truck bearing plate No. A-659 was sold by Southern Motors, Inc. to Roberto Bolneo on an installment basis.
The trial court found that Bolneo thereafter mortgaged the truck to Southern Motors, Inc. as security for the balance of the purchase price.
The trial court concluded that Bolneo owned the truck bearing plate No. A-659 and that Vicente Fernandez was his driver and employee at the time of the collision.
On this basis, the trial court dismissed the action against Southern Motors, Inc.

Carrier Liability Ruling

As to Carmelino de la Serna, the trial court applied Lasam vs. Smith, 45 Phil., 657, and Gillaco vs. Manila Railroad Co. (97 Phil., 884; 51 Off. Gaz., [11] 5596).
The trial court held that the carrier is responsible only when the carrier or its employees fail to exercise reasonable diligence.
Because the trial court found that the truck ridden by Francisco was parked when it was struck, it ruled that the carrier could not be held responsible.
This ruling was not the subject of the appellant’s principal challenge on appeal.

Appellant’s Argument on Ownership

Francisco argued on appeal that, at the time of the accident, the truck bearing plate No. A-659 was legally owned by Southern Motors, Inc.
Her contention relied on the fact that the truck bore the dealer’s plate number issued to Southern Motors, Inc.

Supreme Court Analysis on Dealer’s Plate vs Ownership