Case Summary (G.R. No. L-65295)
Petitioner and Respondent
- Petitioners’ Position: Truck was lawfully parked; Dionisio was negligent, speeding, driving without lights, under influence, and without curfew pass
- Respondent’s Position: Carbonel negligently parked an unlighted dump truck askew on a public street, causing the collision
Key Dates
- November 15, 1975, circa 1:30 a.m.: Collision on General Lacuna Street, Bangkal, Makati
- March 16, 1978 and subsequent hearings: Trial Court proceedings
- Intermediate Appellate Court decision: Date unspecified, affirmed with damage reductions
- Supreme Court decision: March 10, 1987
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution (effective upon promulgation)
- Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 2179 (comparative negligence)
- Rules of Court on evidence (res gestae exception to hearsay)
Factual Background
Dionisio, driving home after dinner and cocktails (one or two shots), alleged sudden headlight failure and swerved into a Ford dump truck owned by Phoenix and driven home earlier that evening by Carbonel. The truck was parked askew on the right side of General Lacuna Street, unlighted and without reflectors. Dionisio sustained physical injuries, permanent facial scarring, loss of dentures, and alleged nervous breakdown.
Issues Presented
- Existence of a valid curfew pass for Dionisio
- Dionisio’s speed at impact
- Whether headlights malfunctioned or were intentionally off
- Dionisio’s level of intoxication
- Proximate cause: Carbonel’s parking negligence versus Dionisio’s contributory negligence
- Applicability of employer’s vicarious liability and comparative negligence in damage allocation
Curfew Pass Evidence
No pass was found on Dionisio or in his vehicle post-accident. A two-year-delayed certification of a curfew pass lacked date or serial number. The Supreme Court held that Dionisio failed to prove possession of a valid pass, which bore on his motive to extinguish headlights to avoid police detection.
Speeding and Res Gestae
Patrolman Cuyno, arriving within minutes, testified under the res gestae exception that bystanders said Dionisio’s car was “moving fast” without lights. The Court deemed this admissible as spontaneous statements during a startling event and persuasive on Dionisio’s speed. Dionisio’s contrary estimate of 30 km/h was accepted as less credible.
Headlight Malfunction Theory
While Dionisio claimed accidental headlight failure, the Court found petitioners’ theory—intentional extinguishment to evade curfew enforcement—more plausible. The absence of mechanical proof of failure and Dionisio’s motive supported a finding of deliberate non-use of lights.
Intoxication Evidence
Patrolman Cuyno’s testimony of Dionisio’s odor of liquor, combined with Dionisio’s admission of “a shot or two,” did not establish intoxication amounting to reckless imprudence. The Court concluded the evidence was insufficient to show significant impairment of faculties.
Determination of Negligence and Proximate Cause
The Supreme Court found Dionisio negligent in speeding and intentionally disabling headlights, but held Carbonel’s improper parking—creating an unreasonable risk on a public thoroughfare—the direct and proximate cause of the collision. Dionisio’s negligence was contributory but not an independent intervening cause sufficient to relieve petitioners of liability. The Court cited Civil Code Article 2179 to permit recovery despite contributory negligence.
Employer Liability (Culpa in Vigilando)
Phoenix’s allowance for Carbonel to drive the company truck home, coupled with lack of oversight on parking practices, invoked the presumptio
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-65295)
Facts of the Case
- On 15 November 1975 at about 1:30 a.m., Leonardo Dionisio was driving his Volkswagen home from a work‐related dinner after taking “a shot or two” of liquor.
- As Dionisio proceeded down General Lacuna Street in Bangkal, Makati, his headlights “suddenly failed.”
- He switched his lights to “bright” and immediately saw a Ford dump truck parked askew, protruding into the lane without any lights or warning devices.
- The dump truck was owned by Phoenix Construction, Inc., driven home earlier by Armando U. Carbonel with the company’s permission for early‐morning work.
- Dionisio swerved to avoid the obstruction but collided with the truck, suffering physical injuries, permanent facial scars, a nervous breakdown, and the loss of two gold bridge dentures.
Procedural History
- Dionisio sued Phoenix and Carbonel for damages in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, alleging negligence in parking the dump truck.
- Petitioners countered that Dionisio’s own recklessness—speeding, driving under the influence, driving without headlights and without a curfew pass—was the proximate cause.
- The trial court found for Dionisio, awarding:
• P15,000 for hospital bills and lost dentures
• P150,000 for loss of expected income
• P100,000 moral damages
• P10,000 exemplary damages
• P4,500 attorney’s fees
• Costs of suit - Petitioners appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), which:
• Reduced compensatory damages to P6,460.71
• Reduced loss of income to P100,000
• Reduced moral damages to P50,000
• Left exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs intact - Petitioners then filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Did Dionisio’s alleged negligent acts (no headlights, speeding, lack of curfew pass, possible intoxication) constitute an efficient, intervening cause that extinguished petitioners’ liability?
- Was the negligent parking o