G.R. No. 34840 - Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez

Case Summary (G.R. No. 34840)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner(s)/Appellants: Bonifacio Gutierrez; Manuel and Maria V. de Gutierrez; Abelardo Velasco; Saturnino Cortez (each appealed the trial judgment). Respondent/Appellee: Narciso Gutierrez (sought recovery of P10,000 for personal injuries).

Key Dates

Accident: February 2, 1930. Decision of the court below (final disposition of appeal): September 23, 1931. (The judgment under review awarded P10,000 to the plaintiff at trial; the Supreme Court modified that award.)

Applicable Law

The court applied Philippine civil liability principles for obligations arising from fault or negligence, expressly invoking article 1903 of the Civil Code (as referenced in the decision) with respect to parental liability for acts of a minor. The court also considered and discussed relevant common-law authority on owner liability for negligent operation of automobiles by family members (citing works and U.S. precedent such as Huddy On Automobiles and Missell v. Hayes).

Facts

A passenger truck driven by chauffeur Abelardo Velasco and owned by Saturnino Cortez collided with a privately owned automobile driven by Bonifacio Gutierrez. The automobile was owned by his parents, Manuel and Maria V. de Gutierrez. Seven members of the Gutierrez family, including the mother, were riding in the automobile; the father was not present. Narciso Gutierrez, a passenger on the truck, suffered a serious fracture to his right leg that required prolonged medical attention and had not fully healed by the time of trial. It was conceded that the collision was caused by negligence, but the parties disputed which vehicle and which driver was primarily at fault.

Trial Court Findings

The trial judge made specific factual findings, including that Bonifacio was an incompetent chauffeur, was driving at an excessive speed, and “lost his head” upon approaching the bridge and truck—facts demonstrating contributory negligence on Bonifacio’s part. The trial court also made findings concerning the position and speed of the truck and the lack of care by its chauffeur. The Supreme Court majority determined that these factual findings were sufficiently supported by the record and should be maintained.

Issues Presented

Whether the Gutierrez parents (owners) or the son (driver) should be held civilly liable for injuries caused by the son’s negligent driving.
Whether the truck owner and his chauffeur (Cortez and Velasco) were liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.
Whether contributory negligence by the plaintiff defeated or reduced recovery.
Whether the trial court’s award of damages (P10,000) was excessive.

Liability of the Gutierrez Family

The court held the father (Manuel Gutierrez) liable for the negligent acts of his son Bonifacio pursuant to the father’s guaranty at the time the son was granted a license and under article 1903 of the Civil Code as applied to civil liability for fault or negligence. The court concluded the father alone, and not the minor son or the mother, would be civilly responsible for damages caused by the minor. The opinion also referenced a common-law doctrine (from U.S. authorities) that an owner who maintains an automobile for family use may be liable for negligent operation by a child when the vehicle is being used for the pleasure of other family members—a theory the court discussed by way of analogy to reinforce the owner's responsibility for the child-driver’s actions.

Liability of Cortez and Velasco (Truck Owner and Chauffeur)

The court found liability against the truck owner, Saturnino Cortez, and his chauffeur, Abelardo Velasco, on a contractual basis—i.e., the master-servant (employer-employee) relationship and attendant contractual obligations arising from the chauffeur’s operation of the truck for the owner. The trial court’s findings about the truck’s position on the bridge, its speed, and lack of care by the chauffeur were deemed sufficient to support liability. Thus, the court held Cortez and Velasco responsible for their negligence that contributed to the collision.

Contributory Negligence Defense

Defendants asserted that the plaintiff’s own conduct (specifically, keeping his foot outside the truck) constituted contributory negligence that caused or contributed to his injury. The Supreme Court rejected this defense for two reasons stated in the opinion: (1) contributory negligence was no

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 34840)

Citation and Procedural Posture

Reported at 56 Phil. 177; G.R. No. 34840; decided September 23, 1931.
Action commenced in the Court of First Instance of Manila by plaintiff-appellee Narciso Gutierrez to recover damages for physical injuries sustained in an automobile collision.
Original judgment awarded the relief sought by plaintiff; both sets of defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision authored by Malcolm, J.; Avancena, C.J., Johnson, Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez, and Imperial, JJ., concurred. Villa-Real, J., filed a separate opinion regarding quantum.

Factual Background

Date and place of accident: February 2, 1930, on the Talon bridge on the Manila South Road, municipality of Las Piñas, Province of Rizal.
Vehicles involved: a passenger truck and a privately owned automobile.
Truck particulars: driven by chauffeur Abelardo Velasco; owned by Saturnino Cortez.
Automobile particulars: operated by Bonifacio Gutierrez, aged 18; owned by his parents, Manuel Gutierrez and Maria V. de Gutierrez.
Occupants of the automobile: the father (Manuel) was not in the car at the time; the mother (Maria V.) and several other members of the Gutierrez family — seven persons in total — were accommodated in the automobile.
Plaintiff’s status: Narciso Gutierrez was a passenger in the autobus (truck) en route from San Pablo, Laguna, to Manila.
Injury: the collision resulted in a fractured right leg for Narciso Gutierrez, requiring considerable medical attendance and, as of trial, appearing not to have healed properly.

Cause of Action and General Liability Finding

Nature of claim: civil action for damages arising from negligence.
Causation conceded: it was conceded that the collision was caused by negligence pure and simple.
Dispute among parties: plaintiff blamed both sets of defendants; the owner of the passenger truck (Cortez) blamed the automobile; the owner of the automobile blamed the truck.
Appellate court approach: the majority of the Supreme Court found that the trial judge’s findings on controversial factual questions were sufficiently supported by the record and should be maintained.

Findings as to the Gutierrez Family (Automobile Owner and Driver)

Driver competence and conduct: Bonifacio, an 18-year-old, was found by the trial court to be an incompetent chauffeur who was driving at an excessive rate of speed; on approaching the bridge and the truck he “lost his head” and thereby contributed by his negligence to the accident.
Parental guaranty and responsibility: a guaranty given by the father (Manuel) when the son was granted a license to operate motor vehicles made the father responsible for the acts of his son.
Civil Code implication: pursuant to the provisions of article 1903 of the Civil Code, the father alone, and not the minor or the mother, would be liable for the damages caused by the minor.
Scope of liability discussed: the Court treated this as civil liability for obligations arising from fault or negligence and recognized analogous common-law principles.

Common-Law Rule Referenced

U.S. common-law doctrine cited: the Court observed that, in the United States, it is uniformly held that the head of a household who owns an automobile maintained for general family use is liable for negligent operation by one of his children whom he designates or permits to run it when the car is being used at the time of injury for the pleasure of other family members.
Rationale stated: the running of the automobile by a child to carry other family members is within the scope of the owner’s business, making the owner liable for the child’s negligence on a master-servant theory.
Authorities cited in the opinion: Huddy On Automobiles, 6th ed., sec. 660; Missell vs. Hayes (1914),