Case Summary (G.R. No. 34840)
Adjudication of Factual Determinations
The trial court found that both drivers contributed to the accident by failing to yield on the bridge and operating at excessive speeds. Bonifacio lost control in panic; Velasco positioned the truck improperly and drove carelessly. The Supreme Court, by majority, affirmed these findings, deeming them amply supported by the record.
Liability of Manuel Gutierrez Under Article 1903
Under Civil Code Article 1903, a parent who guarantees a minor’s fitness to drive motor vehicles is civilly liable for the minor’s negligent acts. Manuel Gutierrez had given such a guaranty when securing his son’s license. Consequently, liability for the automobile’s negligence rests solely on Manuel, not on the minor driver or on Maria de Gutierrez.
Common Law Analogy of Parental Liability
The Court recognized concordance with prevailing U.S. authority: where an automobile owner permits a child to operate the vehicle for family pleasure, the owner is liable as master for the child’s negligence. This analogy reinforces the principle that Manuel’s relationship to the driver and his permit translate into vicarious responsibility.
Liability of Truck Owner and Chauffeur Based on Contract of Carriage
Liability for the truck’s role arises from contract. As the owner engaged Velasco to transport passengers, Cortez undertook a contractual duty to exercise due care. The trial court’s findings—improper positioning, undue speed, and lack of care—establish breach of that duty, making both Cortez and Velasco jointly and severally liable.
Contributory Negligence Considerations
Defendants alleged that petitioner’s negligence—allegedly keeping his foot outside the truck—contributed to his injury. The Court rejected this defense because contributory negligence was not pleaded and the evidence was c
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 34840)
Facts of the Case
- On February 2, 1930, an automobile owned by Mr. and Mrs. Manuel Gutierrez and driven by their 18-year-old son Bonifacio collided with a passenger truck owned by Saturnino Cortez and driven by Abelardo Velasco on the Talon bridge, Manila South Road, Las Piñas, Rizal.
- The Gutierrez automobile carried Mrs. Gutierrez and six other family members; the Cortez truck was transporting passengers, including plaintiff-appellee Narciso Gutierrez, en route from San Pablo, Laguna, to Manila.
- As a result of the collision, Narciso Gutierrez suffered a fractured right leg, requiring prolonged medical care and resulting in incomplete healing at the time of trial.
- It was conceded that the accident was caused by negligence on both sides, though each party attributed fault exclusively to the other.
Procedural Posture
- Plaintiff filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking P10,000 in damages for physical injuries from the collision.
- Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff as prayed.
- Both sets of defendants (the Gutierrez family and the Cortez-Velasco combination) appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Which defendants are legally responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries?
- Whether the father’s guaranty for his son’s driving license imposes civil liability on him under Article 1903 of the Civil Code.
- Whether the owner of the truck and his chauffeur are liable on a contractual basis for negligent operation.
- Whether contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff can reduce or bar recovery.
- What is the appropriate measure of damages for the injuries sustained?