Case Summary (G.R. No. 162104)
Petitioner
R Transport Corporation is a common carrier operating a bus line between Cubao, Quezon City and Gapan, Nueva Ecija. It denied liability, asserting that it exercised the diligence of a good father in hiring and supervising employees and that the accident was a force majeure.
Respondent
Eduardo Pante purchased a bus ticket (No. 555401) for P48.00 and rode petitioner’s bus (Plate CVW-635, Body No. 94810). He alleged physical injuries caused by fast and reckless driving that resulted in the bus hitting a tree and a house.
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Accident: January 27, 1995. Complaint filed: March 14, 1995 with RTC Gapan City, Branch 35 (Civil Case No. 1460). RTC decision: June 26, 2002 (finding petitioner liable and awarding damages). Court of Appeals decision: October 7, 2003 (affirmed RTC). CA resolution denying reconsideration: February 5, 2004. Petition for review under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court; Supreme Court decision affirming the CA on September 15, 2009. Governing constitution for the decision: 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Applicable Law and Governing Legal Standards
Primary substantive law applied: Civil Code provisions on common carriers — Articles 1733, 1755, 1756, 1759, and damages provisions (Arts. 2219, 2220, 2232). Procedural reference: Rule 45 for petition for review on certiorari. Constitutional baseline invoked by Court for procedural fairness: due process guarantees under the 1987 Constitution (as the decision post-dates 1990).
Factual Findings — Accident and Injuries
At about 3:00 a.m. on the date in question, the bus operated by petitioner struck a tree and a house in Baliuag, Bulacan. Respondent suffered a laceration to the frontal area and fracture of the right humerus. An unidentified petitioner employee brought respondent to Baliuag District Hospital, where Dr. Virginia C. Cabling issued a certification that respondent underwent operative treatment for the fractured humerus.
Medical Treatment and Economic Losses
Respondent’s hospital Statement of Account recorded P22,870.00 for operation and confinement. Additional medication expenses totaled P8,072.60. Respondent later underwent a second operation with additional medical and hospitalization expenses of P15,170.00. Petitioner provided initial assistance of P7,000.00 to respondent’s wife for a stainless steel instrument; respondent also lost employment for nearly a year due to disability.
Trial Conduct and Waiver of Evidence
The case experienced repeated postponements, several due to motions by petitioner, and lengthy delay over seven years. At trial petitioner was declared to have waived its right to cross-examine the respondent because of repeated unexplained absences of petitioner and counsel (cross-examination resets and eventual waiver). On June 19, 2002, petitioner was declared to have waived its right to present evidence for unexplained absence despite notice; the case was submitted for decision without petitioner’s evidence.
Due Process Contentions and Court’s Ruling
Petitioner contended that denial of opportunity to present evidence violated its right to due process. The Court held there was no denial of due process because petitioner had ample opportunity to be heard but repeatedly failed to attend and to present evidence; waiver was properly found. Citing Silverio, Sr. v. Court of Appeals and principles that an opportunity to be heard suffices, the Court concluded petitioner’s own conduct justified the waiver.
Liability of Common Carriers — Presumption and Legal Consequences
The Court applied Civil Code jurisprudence holding common carriers to extraordinary diligence (Arts. 1733 and 1755) and the presumption of fault in passenger death or injuries (Art. 1756). Article 1759 makes common carriers liable for death or injury caused by employees’ negligence irrespective of supervision diligence. Given the bus’s collision and respondent’s unrebutted testimony describing fast and reckless driving by the driver, the presumption of carrier negligence remained unrebutted; petitioner therefore bore liability.
Evidence and Admissibility Issues
Petitioner argued that the hospital Statement of Account was not the best evidence and that the medical certificate lacked probative value because the issuing physician was not presented. The Court rejected these objections: prior jurisprudence admitted hospital statements as evidence of hospital expenses (citing Jarco Marketing Corp.); the medical certificate was admissible and unobjected to by petitioner at trial. The Court found the documentary evidence sufficient to support the award of actual damages and medical expense findings.
Damages — Actual, Moral, Exemplary, and Attorney’s Fees
The RTC awarded P39,112.60 as actual damages (hospitalization and related expenses aggregated), P50,000.00 as moral
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 162104)
Case Caption and Procedural Posture
- Third Division, G.R. No. 162104; Decision by the Supreme Court dated September 15, 2009 (Peralta, J.).
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking review of:
- Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CV No. 76170 dated October 7, 2003; and
- Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated February 5, 2004, denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- Trial court: Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Gapan City, Branch 35; RTC Decision dated January 26, 2002, holding petitioner liable for damages for respondent’s physical injuries.
- Appeal to the Court of Appeals; CA affirmed the RTC Decision in toto and imposed double costs against appellant (petitioner).
- Petitioner filed motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals which was denied; thereafter the petition to the Supreme Court followed.
- Final disposition by the Supreme Court: petition denied; Court of Appeals Decision dated October 7, 2003 and Resolution dated February 5, 2004 affirmed; costs against petitioner.
Parties and Representation
- Petitioner: R Transport Corporation, represented by its owner/president Rizalina Lamzon (also referred to as Rosalina Lamson in the RTC Decision and Rosalina Lanson in the CA Decision).
- Respondent: Eduardo Pante.
- Trial counsel for respondent: Atty. Ireneo Romano (mentioned as moving to declare waiver of defendant’s right to present evidence).
- Bus driver identified in the record: Johnny Merdiquia.
Facts of the Case — Factual Chronology and Key Events
- R Transport Corporation is a common carrier operating a bus line transporting passengers between Cubao, Quezon City and Gapan, Nueva Ecija.
- At about 3:00 a.m. on January 27, 1995, respondent Eduardo Pante boarded petitioner’s bus (R. L. Bus Liner) with Plate Number CVW‑635 and Body Number 94810 in Cubao, bound for Gapan, Nueva Ecija.
- Respondent paid fare of P48.00 and was issued bus ticket number 555401 (Exhibit “A,” records, p. 37).
- While traveling along the Doña Remedios Trinidad Highway in Baliuag, Bulacan, the bus hit a tree and a house due to the fast and reckless driving of the bus driver, Johnny Merdiquia.
- Respondent sustained physical injuries and was brought by an unidentified employee of petitioner to the Baliuag District Hospital.
- Medical diagnosis recorded: “laceration frontal area, with fracture of the right humerus” (Exhibit “B,” records, p. 114).
- Respondent underwent an operation for the fracture of the right humerus per Certification dated February 17, 1995 issued by Dr. Virginia C. Cabling of the Baliuag District Hospital (Exhibit “B”).
- Hospital Statement of Account showed operation and confinement cost of P22,870.00 (Exhibit “E,” records, p. 119).
- Respondent also incurred medication expenses of P8,072.60 (source records).
- Respondent was informed he would have to undergo a second operation after two years of rest.
- Respondent was unemployed for almost a year after the first operation because his employer, Goldilocks (where he worked as a production crew), refused to accept him due to his disability.
- Petitioner provided initial assistance of P7,000.00 to respondent’s wife, Analiza P. Pante, which was spent for the stainless steel instrument used for the fractured arm (Exhibit “D,” records, p. 118).
- Four years later respondent underwent a second operation and spent P15,170.00 for medical and hospitalization expenses (Exhibits “F‑1” to “F‑5,” records, pp. 241‑243).
- On March 14, 1995 respondent filed a Complaint for damages against petitioner in the RTC of Gapan City (docketed as Civil Case No. 1460).
Trial Proceedings and Conduct of Parties
- In its Answer, petitioner asserted it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in selection and supervision of employees and alleged the accident was a force majeure.
- Pre‑trial on October 4, 1995: petitioner declared in default (records, p. 73); default was reconsidered by the trial court on December 12, 1995 (records, p. 96) upon finding petitioner had earlier filed a Motion to Transfer Date of Hearing.
- Trial was set on February 26, 1996 and was postponed several times on motion of petitioner; the entire case was protracted over years.
- Direct examination of respondent concluded on October 24, 2001; cross‑examination was reset multiple times due to absence and motions by petitioner (records, pp. 245, 249, 250).
- On March 13, 2002, petitioner was declared to have waived its right to cross‑examine respondent due to absence of petitioner and counsel; respondent was allowed to offer exhibits within five days (records, p. 255).
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration dated April 4, 2002 was denied on May 7, 2002 (records, pp. 260, 268).
- On June 19, 2002, petitioner was declared to have waived its right to present evidence due to unexplained absence despite prior notice, on motion of respondent’s counsel; the case was declared submitted for decision.
- Trial court rendered Decision on June 26, 2002 (CA rollo, p. 284; rollo, p. 90).
Trial Court Judgment (Dispositive Portion)
- Trial court ordered defendants to pay:
- P39,112.60 as actual damages;
- P50,000.00 as moral damages;
- P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;
- Twenty‑five percent (25%) of the total of which shall constitute a lien as contingent fee of plaintiff’s counsel.
- Trial court applied provisions of the Civil Code governing common carriers, invoking the presumption of negligence in case of passenger injury (Article 1756) and holding the presumption stands as petitioner failed to rebut it.
Issues Raised on Appeal and in the Petition to the Supreme Court
- Petitioner’s stated assignments of e