Case Summary (G.R. No. 166869)
Factual Background
On March 17, 1991, a motorcycle driven by Silvino Tan, with Vivian Tan Lee as passenger, a passenger jeep, and a bus bearing Body No. 119 owned by Petitioner Philippine Hawk Corporation and driven by Margarito Avila, were involved in a collision in Barangay Buensoceso, Gumaca, Quezon. The accident resulted in the immediate death of Silvino Tan from massive cerebral hemorrhage and caused physical injuries to Vivian Tan Lee, who was hospitalized. Witnesses described the motorcycle as being on the left side of the highway and moving toward the right, and accounts diverged as to whether the motorcycle crossed the bus’s path or whether the bus veered into the left lane.
Trial Court Proceedings
Respondent Vivian Tan Lee filed suit for damages based on quasi-delict, seeking indemnity for death, moral and exemplary damages, funeral and interment expenses, medical and hospitalization expenses, cost of motorcycle repair, attorney’s fees, and other reliefs. The parties stipulated certain facts at pre-trial, including the involvement of the three vehicles, the death of Silvino Tan, Avila’s employment with Petitioner, and the existence of issues whether proximate cause was negligence of Avila or of the deceased, and whether Petitioner exercised the diligence of a good father of the family in selection and supervision of its driver. Trial testimony came from Respondent, the jeep driver, bus conductor, operations officer of Petitioner, and other witnesses, producing divergent accounts of speed, position, and maneuvers before collision.
Trial Court Findings
The trial court found Margarito Avila guilty of simple negligence and rendered judgment against Petitioner and Avila jointly and severally. The court reasoned that the bus must have veered from the right lane toward the left lane because it struck both the moving motorcycle and the parked passenger jeep on the left, and that Avila failed to slow down after seeing the motorcycle. The trial court held Petitioner liable for failing to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of Avila.
Court of Appeals Decision
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s liability finding but modified the award of damages. It ordered Petitioner and Avila to pay jointly and severally specified sums for actual damages, temperate damages, moral damages, unearned income, and civil indemnity. The appellate court computed loss of earning capacity under Art. 2206, adjusted actual damages for funeral and medical expenses based on submitted receipts, awarded temperate damages for unreliably proven repair costs under Art. 2224, and awarded moral damages for the death and for the physical injuries to Respondent under Art. 2219.
Issues on Review
Petitioner raised issues before the Supreme Court contesting: (1) the Court of Appeals’ consideration of matters not assigned on appeal and finality of certain issues; (2) the appellate court’s finding that the bus driver saw the motorcycle “about fifteen (15) meters away” and its reliance on the doctrine of last clear chance; and (3) the propriety of the damages awarded, urging adherence to established authorities such as Danao v. Court of Appeals and Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos.
Petitioner's Contentions
Petitioner contended that the Court of Appeals exceeded its authority by passing upon an issue not raised on appeal, that the fifteen-meter factual premise was erroneous because it reflected a witness’s distance to the bus rather than the bus’s distance to the motorcycle, and that damages were improperly awarded or increased on appeal despite the absence of a corresponding cross-appeal by Respondent.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Negligence and Employer Liability
The Supreme Court reviewed the record and declined to disturb the factual findings of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Court emphasized foreseeability as the fundamental test of negligence and reiterated that an ordinary reasonable driver, upon seeing the motorcycle ahead on the left side, should have taken precautions such as slowing down. The Court held that the bus’s maintenance of speed and veering to the left constituted simple negligence and that striking both the moving motorcycle and the parked jeep indicated movement into the left lane. The Court further applied the principle that when an employee’s negligence causes harm, a presumption arises that the employer failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in selection or supervision. Petitioner failed to overcome that presumption because its hiring procedures focused on driving ability and physical fitness and the company did not know of Avila’s prior sideswiping incidents. Consequently, Petitioner remained liable under quasi-delict principles.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Damages
The Court addressed Petitioner’s contention that the appellate court improperly awarded damages not contested on appeal. Citing Sec. 8, Rule 51, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court explained that appellate courts may consider errors not assigned when closely related to assigned errors or necessary to reach a just decision. On substantive damages, the Court applied Art. 2206 to award indemnity for loss of earning capacity to the heirs, accepting as reasonable the use of the deceased’s Certificate of Creditable Income Tax Withheld to fix gross annual income at one million pesos and employing accepted judicial assumptions to compute net earning capacity. The Court reviewed documentary proof for actual expenses and reduced the award to reflect valid receipts, finding funeral-related receipts justified actual damages of P114,948.60 and medical receipts of P12,244.25, yielding total actual damages of P127,192.85. The Court affirmed temperate damages under Art. 2224 for motorcycle repair at P10,000.00 because only an estimate had been offered. The Court sustained moral damages for the death and injuries under Art. 2219 but adjusted the amount for the physical injuries to conform with prevailing jurisprudence. The Court also affirmed civil indemnity for the death at P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.
Ruling and Disposition
The Suprem
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 166869)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- PHILIPPINE HAWK CORPORATION was the petitioner and owner of the bus involved in the collision and appealed the Court of Appeals decision to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
- VIVIAN TAN LEE was the respondent and plaintiff in the action for damages who prosecuted the case below in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
- The action originated as a complaint for damages grounded on quasi-delict filed before the RTC of Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-91-9191.
- The RTC rendered judgment on March 16, 2001, finding the bus driver negligent and holding the bus company liable, and the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification on August 17, 2004.
- The Supreme Court, Third Division, resolved the petition by denying it and affirming the Court of Appeals decision with modification on February 16, 2010.
Key Factual Allegations
- The collision occurred on March 17, 1991 in Barangay Buensoceso, Gumaca, Quezon and involved a motorcycle driven by the deceased Silvino Tan, a parked passenger jeep, and a bus with Body No. 119 owned by PHILIPPINE HAWK CORPORATION.
- The accident resulted in the instantaneous death of Silvino Tan from massive cerebral hemorrhage and caused physical injuries to VIVIAN TAN LEE, who required hospitalization.
- The parties stipulated at pre-trial that the motorcycle and the Metro Bus driven by Margarito Avila were involved in the accident and that Avila was an employee of the bus company.
- VIVIAN TAN LEE testified the motorcycle was stopped at the roadside and, while making a turn, was struck by a fast-moving bus that then hit a parked jeep.
- The bus driver, Margarito Avila, testified that a motorcycle suddenly crossed from the left and that he turned right, heard a loud sound, saw the motorcycle overturn, and thereafter surrendered to police.
- Witnesses offered divergent accounts, with the bus conductor stating the motorcycle bumped the left side of the bus and a barangay kagawad testifying the motorcycle suddenly emerged from the left and struck the bus traveling in a straight path.
- The bus operations officer described standard hiring procedures including NBI clearance, certification from prior employer, physical and driving tests, and semiannual driving reviews, and the records contained evidence that Avila had prior sideswiping incidents which the company did not know.
- VIVIAN TAN LEE testified the deceased earned about one million pesos annually from a leased and operated Caltex gasoline station, and she produced a Certificate of Creditable Income Tax Withheld for 1990 showing gross income of P950,988.43.
Issues Presented
- Whether negligence was attributable to the bus driver Margarito Avila and whether such negligence was the proximate cause of Silvino Tan’s death and of respondent’s injuries.
- Whether PHILIPPINE HAWK CORPORATION was liable for damages for failing to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of its driver.
- Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse by addressing issues not raised on appeal and whether the appellate court erred in applying the doctrine of last clear chance and in awarding additional categories of damages under cited jurisprudence.
Contentions of the Parties
- PHILIPPINE HAWK CORPORATION contended that the proximate cause of the accident was the recklessness or lack of caution of the deceased Silvino Tan and that the company exercised due diligence in hiring and supervising its driver.
- The bus driver Margarito Avila denied responsibility and claimed the motorcycle suddenly crossed his path, causing an unavoidable collision.
- VIVIAN TAN LEE maintained that the bus driver saw the motorcycle and failed to take appropriate precautionary measures which made the bus and the company liable.
- On appeal petitioner argued the Court of Appeals erred in relying on an incorrect factual premise about distances and in awarding damages not specifically assigned as error by respondent.