Case Summary (G.R. No. 172122)
Factual Background
On the night of December 20, 1996 respondent Stephen Huang drove a red 1991 Toyota Corolla GLI, plate number PTT 775, weighing 1,450 kilograms, owned by his parents Spouses Richard and Carmen Huang. Petitioner Mercury Drug Corporation owned a six-wheeler 1990 Mitsubishi truck, plate number PRE 641, weighing 14,058 kilograms, then driven by petitioner Rolando J. del Rosario. As both vehicles proceeded northbound on C-5 from the Alabang direction toward Pasig City, the truck allegedly swerved left and struck the front right side of the car, propelling the car over the median where it struck a lamppost, spun, and came to rest on the opposite lanes; the truck also struck a lamppost, ran over the car, zigzagged, and stopped near Buellah Land Church. The car was a total wreck and valued at P300,000. Respondent Stephen sustained massive spinal cord, head, facial, and lung injuries and, despite multiple operations, became paralyzed from the chest down and requires ongoing medical and rehabilitative care.
Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment
The Regional Trial Court rendered its Decision on September 29, 2004, finding petitioners jointly and severally liable for the injuries and damages of respondent Stephen Huang. The trial court awarded actual damages of P2,973,000.00; life care cost of P23,461,062.00; lost or impaired earning capacity of P10,000,000.00; moral damages of P4,000,000.00; exemplary damages of P2,000,000.00; and attorney’s fees and litigation expenses of P1,000,000.00.
Court of Appeals Disposition
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision with a single modification, reducing the award of moral damages to P1,000,000.00, and denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration as untimely. Petitioners thereupon filed the present petition to the Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution.
Petitioners’ Contentions on Appeal
Petitioners urged reversal on several grounds, asserting that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing their motion for reconsideration as late by one day; in giving greater weight to respondents’ evidence while disregarding petitioners’ defense; in relying on presumptions and non-witness opinion; in awarding damages; and in finding that Mercury Drug Corporation failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its driver, and that Rolando del Rosario was negligent in driving at the time of the accident.
Liability of Driver Del Rosario
The Court affirmed the RTC and CA findings that petitioner Del Rosario was negligent and that his negligence was the direct and proximate cause of respondent Stephen’s injuries. The Court rejected petitioners’ version that the car bumped the truck’s front right tire while the truck occupied the left innermost lane. The driver could not specify which part of the truck was struck and could not account plausibly for why the car landed on the opposite side of C-5 if, as he claimed, the car had hit the truck’s front right portion.
Expert Physics Evidence
The Court accepted the testimony of Dr. Marlon Rosendo H. Daza, an expert in physics, who analyzed the collision under assumptions supported by respondents. Dr. Daza explained that when a lighter vehicle collides with the right front of a substantially heavier vehicle moving in the same direction, the lighter vehicle would generally be propelled to the right of the heavy vehicle and not to its left; conversely, if the lighter vehicle were on the left of the heavier vehicle at impact, the lighter vehicle would move further left, consistent with respondent Stephen’s account and with the car having been driven over the median and pinned against it. The expert’s analysis supported the conclusion that Del Rosario lost control and that the physical aftermath did not conform to petitioners’ version.
Credibility of Petitioners’ Physical Evidence
The Court found unpersuasive petitioners’ attempt to show front-right damage to the truck by photographs taken a month after the accident. The automechanic who repaired the truck authenticated the photographs but conceded that the truck bore damage also on its left side. Moreover, Del Rosario admitted that after the impact he lost control and did not apply his brakes, traveling a substantial distance over the median, striking a lamppost and traversing lanes, admissions inconsistent with a minor bump by the smaller vehicle and corroborative of negligence on his part.
Employer Liability of Mercury Drug Corporation
The Court reiterated that under Art. 2176 and Art. 2180 of the Civil Code the employer’s liability for quasi-delict is direct, immediate, joint and solidary with the employee, and not conditioned upon prior recourse against the employee. To avert liability Mercury Drug bore the burden of proving that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in both the selection and supervision of Del Rosario.
Hiring and Supervision Practices
The Court reviewed the evidence of Mercury Drug’s hiring and supervisory practices and concluded they were inadequate to establish due diligence. Testimony showed that when Del Rosario applied for the truck-man position he had taken driving and psychological tests for the lighter position of delivery man only, and that his examinations employed a Galant, not a truck. No testing for specific motor skills, perceptual speed, visual attention, depth visualization, eye–hand coordination, and steadiness was shown; no NBI or police clearances were presented; driver training seminars attended were remote in time, and company policy did not require back-up drivers for long trips such as the one undertaken, resulting in Del Rosario having been on the road for more than thirteen hours at the time of the accident.
Driver’s Unlicensed Status and Discipline
The Court found that Del Rosario was driving without a valid license at the time of the accident, having his license confiscated for a prior reckless driving apprehension, and that Mercury Drug took no disciplinary action despite the driver’s reporting of the prior incident to his superior. The absence of suspension, reprimand, or other discipline demonstrated the failure of supervision and discipline required of an employer to invoke the diligence of a good father of a family as a defense.
Actual Damages and Life Care Costs
Applying Art. 2199 and Art. 2202, the Court upheld the award of actual damages in the amount of P2,973,000.00, finding that respondents supported the claimed expenses with receipts covering hospital, medical, and nursing care from December 20, 1996 through December 1998. The Court also affirmed the life care cost award of P23,461,062.00 based on medical testimony that respondent Stephen’s prognosis for recovery of ambulation
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 172122)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Petitioners Mercury Drug Corporation and Rolando J. Del Rosario filed a petition from the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 83981 dated February 16, 2006 and March 30, 2006.
- Respondents Spouses Richard Huang and Carmen Huang, and Stephen Huang were the plaintiffs at trial who obtained judgment against petitioners for damages arising from a vehicular accident.
- The trial court rendered judgment on September 29, 2004, which the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification and which the Supreme Court reviewed on petition.
Key Factual Allegations
- Respondent Stephen Huang was driving a 1991 Toyota Corolla GLI sedan on C-5 Highway on December 20, 1996 when his car and a six-wheeler 1990 Mitsubishi truck owned by Mercury Drug Corporation and driven by Rolando J. Del Rosario collided.
- The collision hurled the car across the center island where it struck a lamppost, and the truck ran over the car before stopping in front of Buellah Land Church.
- Respondent Stephen Huang sustained catastrophic spinal cord, head, face, and lung injuries and became paralyzed from the chest down despite multiple surgeries.
- At the time of the accident Del Rosario had only a Traffic Violation Receipt because his license had been confiscated following a prior apprehension for reckless driving.
Trial Court Findings
- The trial court found Del Rosario negligent and Mercury Drug Corporation vicariously liable for failing to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in hiring and supervising its employee.
- The trial court awarded actual, life-care, lost earning capacity, moral, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses in specified amounts totaling substantial sums in favor of respondents.
Court of Appeals Action
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision but reduced the award of moral damages to P1,000,000.00.
- The Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration as untimely and otherwise dismissed petitioners’ challenges to the factual and legal findings.
Issues on Appeal
- Whether Del Rosario was negligent and whether his negligence was the proximate cause of Stephen Huang’s injuries.
- Whether Mercury Drug Corporation discharged its burden to show that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of Del Rosario.
- Whether the damages awarded by the trial court were supported by evidence and properly quantified.
Contentions of Parties
- Petitioners contended that the car struck the truck’s front right tire, that Stephen Huang was the immediate and proximate cause of the accident, and that Mercury Drug Corporation exercised due diligence in hiring and supervising its employee.
- Respondents maintained that Del Rosario suddenly swerved left and struck the car, that Del Rosario’s negligence caused the injuries, and