Case Summary (G.R. No. 157658)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Accident occurred April 27, 1992. Complaint filed July 22, 1992 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 28, docketed Civil Case No. 92-61987. RTC rendered judgment for petitioners on August 22, 1996. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and awarded damages to respondents. Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court followed; the Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision.
Applicable Law and Legal Foundation
Primary tort provision: Article 2176, New Civil Code (quasi-delict). Employer liability by operation of law: Article 2180, New Civil Code (responsibility of owners/managers for acts of employees unless due diligence is shown). Statutory reference for vehicular duty at crossings: Section 42(d), R.A. No. 4136 (Land Transportation and Traffic Code). The decision was rendered under the 1987 Constitution as applicable to cases decided from 1990 onward.
Factual Findings Established in the Record
Amores stopped briefly before crossing the tracks, proceeded, and was struck by PNR locomotive T-517 at the Kahilum II intersection. At the time of impact there was no crossing bar, no posted flagman, and no signaling device in working order; the only sign was a deteriorated “STOP, LOOK and LISTEN” sign with the “LISTEN” word missing and “LOOK” bent. No whistle or horn from the locomotive was heard prior to impact. The automobile was dragged approximately ten meters beyond the center of the crossing; Amores died from the collision.
Parties’ Claims and Defenses Presented to the Courts
Respondents alleged PNR negligence in failing to provide adequate warnings (no semaphore, crossing bar, flagman, or working sign) and charged driver Borja with negligent operation (failure to sound horn and late braking). Petitioners denied negligence, asserting the train was railroad-worthy, the speedometer defect did not affect operation, and Amores’s own negligence or misjudgment in attempting to beat the train was the proximate cause. PNR also invoked the statutory duty of motorists under Section 42(d), R.A. No. 4136, to stop and look before traversing crossings.
RTC Decision and Rationale
The RTC found for petitioners, concluding that Amores’s misjudgment and reckless attempt to cross despite seeing or hearing the approaching train constituted the proximate cause of the collision. The complaint and counterclaim were dismissed and costs were apportioned.
CA Reversal and Rationale
The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and held PNR and the estate of Borja jointly and severally liable. The CA’s essential findings were: (1) the crossing was in a densely populated area and thus required greater protective measures (semaphore, flagman or at least adequate signage); (2) the existing sign was defective and insufficient; (3) no flagman or whistle warned the public; and (4) Amores exercised reasonable care in crossing. The CA awarded P122,300.00 for damage to the car and P50,000.00 as moral damages, but denied claims for funeral expenses and support for lack of documentary proof.
Supreme Court Issue on Review
The controlling issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals erred in attributing negligence to PNR and Borja and whether the appellate court’s reversal of the RTC was an abuse of discretion or contrary to the record.
Supreme Court Analysis on Negligence of PNR and Driver
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA finding of negligence. It applied the general tort standard of Article 2176: negligence exists when one fails to observe the degree of care and vigilance circumstances demand. The Court emphasized fact-dependent calibration of required care and found that PNR failed to exercise the degree of care demanded by the circumstances: the train was running fast (as evidenced by distance dragged after braking), warnings were inadequate (no crossing bar, no flagman, defective signboard), and the locomotive did not warn (no whistle heard). The Court cited precedents establishing that railroad companies owe the public reasonable care at crossings and must maintain signaling devices in good condition; failure to do so indicates negligence.
Consideration of Motorist Duty under R.A. No. 4136 and Response to Petitioners’ Argument
Petitioners relied on Section 42(d) of R.A. No. 4136 to argue motorists bear a heavier responsibility to stop, look and listen and that the obligation to stop only applies where the crossing is designated and sign-posted as a “through street.” The Supreme Court acknowledged the duty of motorists to exercise sight and hearing at crossings but found that
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 157658)
Case Caption, Reference and Court Panel
- Decision of the Supreme Court, Third Division, G.R. No. 157658, dated October 15, 2007.
- Opinion authored by Justice Nachura.
- Case arose from CA-G.R. CV No. 54906 (Court of Appeals, Second Division), decision penned by Associate Justice Teodoro P. Regino with Concurring Justices Buenaventura J. Guerrero and Mariano C. Del Castillo (see rollo, pp. 37-43).
- Trial court decision rendered by Judge Eudoxia T. Gualberto of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila, Branch 28, in Civil Case No. 92-61987 (see rollo, pp. 44-58).
Procedural Posture
- Petitioners (Philippine National Railways [PNR] and Virgilio J. Borja) filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure to annul and set aside the Court of Appeals decision which reversed the RTC judgment.
- The case stemmed from a complaint for damages filed by the heirs of Jose Amores (respondents) in Civil Case No. 92-61987.
- RTC rendered judgment in favor of petitioners on August 22, 1996, dismissing the complaint.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and ordered PNR and the estate of Virgilio J. Borja to pay damages (CA decision, later challenged before the Supreme Court).
- Supreme Court disposition: petition denied; the Court of Appeals decision dated March 31, 2003 in CA-G.R. CV No. 54906 affirmed.
Factual Background (Undisputed Core Facts)
- Date and place of accident: early afternoon of April 27, 1992, at the railroad crossing on Kahilum II Street, Pandacan, Manila.
- Victim: Jose Amores (herein deceased); he was traversing the railroad tracks in his car.
- Circumstances immediately before collision: Amores stopped for a while before crossing the railroad track and then proceeded to cross (TSN, March 4, 1994, pp. 6, 10).
- A PNR train bearing locomotive number T-517 arrived and collided with Amores' car at the intersection (rollo, p. 37).
- At the time of the mishap there was no crossing bar or signal at the intersection to warn motorists.
- Visible warning sign at the crossing was a defective standard signboard reading "STOP, LOOK and LISTEN" but the word "Listen" was lacking and "Look" was bent (rollo, p. 41).
- No whistle blow from the train was heard before impact (TSN, March 4, 1994, pp. 17-18).
- After impact the car was dragged approximately ten (10) meters beyond the center of the crossing (rollo, p. 40).
- Result: Amores died as a consequence of the collision.
Parties and Claims
- Plaintiffs/Respondents: Heirs of Jose Amores (his surviving wife and six children).
- Alleged that PNR and Borja were negligent; claimed train speedometer defective; alleged defendants failed to take precautions to prevent injury despite dense population nearby.
- Sought actual and moral damages, and attorney's fees (Records, pp. 1-5; id. at 4).
- Defendants/Petitioners: Philippine National Railways and Virgilio J. Borja (locomotive driver).
- Denied allegations; contended train was railroad-worthy and without defect.
- Asserted proximate cause was Amores' carelessness and attempt to beat the train.
- Admitted absence of crossing bar because the road was merely a barangay road (TSN, July 3, 1995, p. 23).
- Asserted PNR exercised diligence in selection and supervision of Borja and that Borja used extraordinary diligence to avoid the accident; invoked last clear chance doctrine.
Trial Court (RTC) Findings and Rationale
- Judgment rendered August 22, 1996: complaint dismissed; defendants' counterclaim dismissed; costs halved (rollo, p. 58).
- RTC conclusion: proximate cause of collision was Amores' fatal misjudgment and reckless course of action in crossing the railroad track even after seeing or hearing the oncoming train.
Court of Appeals Findings and Rationale (Reversal)
- Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and held defendants PNR and the estate of Borja jointly and severally liable.
- Awards ordered by CA:
- P122,300.00 for damage to the car.
- P50,000 as moral damages.
- Claims for funeral expenses and support denied for lack of official receipts and specimen of last pay slip (no basis).
- Costs against defendants (CA decision excerpt, rollo, p. 42).
- CA's factual findings supporting negligence:
- Failure of PNR to install a semaphore or at least post a flagman given the crossing's location in a thickly populated area.
- Defective "Stop, Look and Listen" signboard insufficient to warn the public.
- Amores exercised reasonable diligence in crossing and thus no negligence attributed to him.
- Lack of whistle or warning and inadequate warning devices were significant.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing RTC by not considering Section 42, R.A. 4136 (Land Transportation and Traffic Code).
- Whether the Court of Appeals' decision is contrary to the evidence on record adduced at trial in Civil Case No. 92-61987.
Parties' Contentions on Appeal (Summarized)
- Petitioners (PNR and Borja):
- Contend Amores must have heard the train’s whistle and elected to try to beat the train, misjudging distance and speed.
- Asserted the train was railroad-worthy; defective speedometer did not affect operation.
- Claimed sufficient warning signs were strategically installed.
- Invoked R.A. 4136 Section 42(d) argument, emphasizing motorist duties to stop, look and listen and that greater responsibility rests on motorists at level crossings.
- Respondents (Amores heirs):
- Asserted the accident was due to PNR’s carelessness, imprudence and laxity in failing to provide crossing bar and keeper at Kahilum II intersection.
- Emphasized Kahilum II Street's location in a thickly populated squatters’ area and heavy pedestri