Title
Pestano vs. Spouses Sumayang
Case
G.R. No. 139875
Decision Date
Dec 4, 2000
A 1986 vehicular accident involving a bus and motorcycle led to two deaths. Courts found the bus driver and company negligent, awarding damages based on the deceased's life expectancy.
pestano
spouses sumayang
bus driver

Case Summary (G.R. No. 28883)

Factual Background

The Court of Appeals’ recital, adopted by the Supreme Court as binding insofar as its factual findings were concerned, described that Ananias was riding the motorcycle along the national highway when they approached a junction where the highway connected with the road leading to Tabagon. According to the evidence summarized, the motorcycle and its passengers were hit by Metro Cebu’s passenger bus, which attempted to overtake. The impact sent the motorcycle and its riders hurtling onto the pavement. Ananias was rushed to the hospital in Sogod, where he was pronounced dead on arrival. Romagos was transferred to Cebu Doctors’ Hospital but later died from his injuries on the following day.

Civil and Criminal Proceedings in the Trial Court

Respondents, claiming to be the heirs of Ananias, filed a civil action for damages against Pestano as driver, Metro Cebu as owner and operator of the bus, and Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. as insurer. The civil case was docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-6108. At the same time, Pestano faced a criminal case for double homicide thru reckless imprudence under Criminal Case No. 10624 in Branch 16 of the same court. On November 9, 1987, upon motion of Pestano, the trial court ordered consolidation of the civil and criminal cases, after which a joint trial ensued.

Evidence on Negligence Presented at Trial

The testimonies relied upon by respondents were presented through Ignacio Neis, Pat. Aquilino Dinoy, and Teotimo Sumayang, father of the deceased. Neis testified that he saw the incident from a bench beside the highway. He stated that both vehicles came from the North. As the motorcycle approached the junction to Tabagon, Ananias raised his left arm to signal he was taking the Tabagon road. Neis further testified that the motorcycle turned left but was nevertheless bumped by an overspeeding bus. He added that the force of the impact threw Ananias and Romagos about 14 meters away, and that the motorcycle was badly damaged and dragged by the bus.

Pat. Dinoy corroborated the occurrence of the collision and testified that he heard the sound of the impact, went to the scene, and found Ananias and Romagos bleeding and badly injured. He described his basis for concluding the probable point of impact, which he said was at the left lane at the junction to Tabagon, supported by his sketch (Exh. J), including observations related to scratches caused by the motorcycle’s footrest on the asphalt pavement. He likewise described the physical damage to the bus, stating that the right end of the front bumper was bent and the right portion of the radiator grill was dented.

For the defense, Pestano blamed the deceased for the accident. He testified that when he blew the horn, the motorcycle moved to the right side of the highway; that he blew the horn again and accelerated to overtake; and that when he was about one meter behind, the motorcycle suddenly turned left toward the Tabagon road and was bumped by his bus. He claimed he was able to apply the brakes only after the impact. This testimony was corroborated by Ireneo Casilia, a passenger of the bus, who stated that the motorcycle suddenly turned left toward Tabagon without signaling, and that the bus was traveling at about 40 kph at the time of the accident.

Metro Cebu also attempted to establish due care through evidence that Pestano’s driving ability had been tested and that the company conducted lectures on safe driving topics such as speeding, parking, loading, and the treatment of passengers. Metro Cebu’s witnesses also testified that before departures, the vehicle was checked, including tires, brakes, signal lights, and tools, and that performance was monitored by inspectors posted along the route.

Trial Court Decision

The trial court found Pestano negligent. It ruled that he attempted to overtake the motorcycle at a dangerous speed as the vehicles approached a junction and as the motorcycle was about to turn left toward Tabagon. It also held Metro Cebu directly and primarily liable together with Pestano under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, reasoning that Metro Cebu failed to prove it had observed the required diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage, including due diligence in supervision of employees and maintenance of vehicles.

As to damages, the trial court awarded P30,000.00 as death indemnity, P829,079 for loss of earning capacity, and P36,000.00 for necessary interment expenses. As to the insurer, it limited Perla Compania’s liability to the amounts stated in the insurance policy: P12,000 for death indemnity and P4,500.00 for burial expenses.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals affirmed respondents’ right to damages and upheld the finding of negligence against Pestano. It held that Pestano was negligent in attempting to overtake at the junction. It emphasized that as a professional driver operating a public transport bus, he should have exercised extra caution because overtaking at a junction is perilous due to merging and diverging traffic.

As to Metro Cebu, the CA held it liable for laxity in the conduct of operations and supervision of employees. It ruled that allowing the bus to ply its route despite a defective speedometer showed indifference toward proper maintenance, and it concluded that Metro Cebu failed to observe the extraordinary diligence required of public transportation companies, entailing vicarious liability to the victims of the vehicular accident.

Regarding damages, the CA increased the death indemnity from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00. It also affirmed the award of loss of earning capacity computed using the life expectancy of the deceased, holding that the award was not a pension for the heirs but an indemnity for the negligent act.

Issues Raised Before the Supreme Court

Petitioners challenged the CA on the following fronts: whether the CA misapplied facts and law affecting the result; whether the CA misapplied R.A. 4136 regarding the deceased’s behavior at the time of the accident; whether the CA erred in considering the damages for lost earning capacity as a penalty; whether the CA raised death indemnity contrary to Article 2204 of the Civil Code; and whether the CA erred in using the life expectancy of the deceased rather than that of the respondents. In substance, the Supreme Court framed the review around whether (one) the CA erred in attributing the accident to negligence as proximate cause, (two) the CA correctly increased the civil indemnity, and (three) the CA used the proper life expectancy basis for loss of earning capacity.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling on Negligence

The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit on negligence. Petitioners argued that Pestano had no duty to slow down because the motorcycle allegedly gave way upon hearing the bus horn and because the left side of the road was allegedly visible and free of oncoming traffic. They added that if the motorcycle had been positioned properly, the dents on the bus would have shown that the collision occurred in a different lane, indicating that it was the victim who was negligent.

The Court rejected these arguments as questions of fact. It found that the CA had already passed upon the contradictory account between Pestano’s testimony and the eyewitness testimony of Ignacio Neis, as well as upon the interpretation of the physical damage to the bus. It held that petitioners failed to show any recognized exception that would justify the Court’s departure from the CA’s factual findings. The Supreme Court reiterated that in quasi-delicts, negligence is largely a matter of evidence, and that factual findings of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court are binding.

It further explained that Pestano was a professional driver who should have anticipated that overtaking at a junction was a perilous maneuver and should have exercised extreme caution. It also held that petitioners’ challenge to the speedometer did not supply any factual basis to overturn the finding of negligence.

Finally, the Supreme Court addressed Metro Cebu’s responsibility under Articles 2180 and 2176 of the Civil Code. It reiterated that the employer is presumed negligent in selection or supervision when injury is caused by an employee’s negligence. It stated that this presumption may be overcome only by proof that the employer exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in selection and supervision. It held that the CA’s finding that Metro Cebu allowed the bus to ply its route despite a defective speedometer refle

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms