A.M. No. P-17-3639 - Roxas vs. Sicat

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-17-3639)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Accident: March 14, 1997.
Trial court (RTC, Branch 27, Sta. Cruz, Laguna) Decision: December 20, 2006 (ruled for petitioner).
Court of Appeals Decision: June 2, 2008 (reversed RTC, dismissed complaint).
Supreme Court Decision: November 25, 2009 (GR No. 183198) — petition for review under Rule 45; RTC decision reinstated with modification on damages. Applicable constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date is 1990 or later).

Applicable Law and Doctrinal Framework

Constitutional basis: 1987 Philippine Constitution governs judicial review and the exercise of judicial power in cases decided in 1990 or later (as required by the case facts).
Statutory and civil-law provisions invoked: Rules of Court, Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari); Republic Act No. 4136 (Land Transportation and Traffic Code), Section 41 (restrictions on overtaking and passing, including double yellow line and prohibition at intersections); Civil Code provisions on quasi-delict and employer liability — Articles 2176 and 2180; Article 2224 (temperate damages); Article 2208(2) (basis for attorney’s fees under certain circumstances). Case law and evidentiary principles governing res ipsa loquitur and documentary/photographic evidence were also applied.

Factual Allegations by Petitioner

Petitioner alleged that her jitney, lawfully driven by Ramirez and properly signaled while about to turn left into a barangay feeder road, was struck by the JAM bus which overtook and collided with the jitney, causing the jitney to turn turtle, destroying cargo (balut, salted and quail eggs), and injuring the driver and helper. Petitioner sought compensatory damages for vehicle and cargo, moral damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.

Defendant’s Pleadings and Counterclaim

JAM admitted ownership of the bus and that Dimayuga was its driver but denied negligence, asserting instead that Ramirez’s gross negligence caused the accident. JAM counterclaimed for damages to its bus, loss of income, and attorney’s fees. JAM produced as witness only Dimayuga, who testified that a vehicle overtook from the right and collided with his bus such that he could not evade.

Trial Evidence Presented for Petitioner

Witness testimony included petitioner, Ramirez (jitney driver), PO3 Escares (police investigator), and a mechanic who prepared an estimate. Documentary and physical evidence offered by petitioner included: police certification based on the police blotter (Exhibit B), a police sketch of the scene (Exhibit F / I), photographs of the scene (Exhibits E, E-1 to E-6), an estimate of damage from Plantilla Motors (Exhibit D), receipts for medical expenses (Exhibit F), registration of the jitney (Exhibit G), and the bus driver’s license (Exhibit H). Ramirez’s testimony was limited and lacked a detailed recollection of the sequence of collision.

Trial Evidence Presented for Respondent

JAM offered testimony by its bus driver, Edgardo (Eddie) Dimayuga, who testified that he was driving at about 40 km/h when a vehicle overtook from the right, and he could not avoid the collision. JAM offered no documentary evidence to contradict petitioner’s physical evidence or to substantiate its version.

RTC Decision and Reasoning

The RTC applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and found negligence on the part of the JAM bus driver. The RTC concluded that the circumstantial evidence (police sketch, photographs showing relative vehicle positions, and police report) supported an inference that the bus overtook improperly in a no-overtaking area, struck the left side of the jitney, and caused the accident. The RTC awarded actual damages for the jitney and cargo, medical expenses, moral damages, attorney’s fees and costs.

Court of Appeals Reversal and Basis

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that petitioner had access to direct evidence (notably Ramirez and his helper) and therefore could not invoke res ipsa loquitur where direct testimony was available but not presented or where the record was silent as to overtaking. The CA also discounted the police blotter’s probative value and found insufficient proof to show that the JAM bus overtook the jitney or that Dimayuga was negligent. The CA emphasized that res ipsa loquitur is a procedural evidentiary doctrine that does not dispense with the proof of negligence and that the requisite conditions for its application were not satisfied.

Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur — Definition and Requisites

Res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary rule permitting an inference or presumption of negligence from the mere occurrence of an event when four conditions are essentially satisfied: (1) the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) the instrumentality causing the accident was under the exclusive control or management of the defendant; and (3) the possibility of contributory conduct by the plaintiff that would make the plaintiff responsible has been eliminated. The doctrine is not substantive law but a mode of proof that shifts the burden of producing an explanation to the defendant once the plaintiff has established the circumstantial case.

Supreme Court’s Assessment of the Evidence and Application of Res Ipsa

The Supreme Court disagreed with the CA’s conclusion that petitioner had adequate access to direct evidence but failed to present it in a manner that bars application of res ipsa. The Court found Ramirez’s testimony insufficiently detailed and noted the absence of other eyewitnesses. The Court gave weight to the photographs (admitted and authenticated) and the police sketch prepared by PO3 Escares, finding them faithful representations of the scene immediately after the collision. The photographs showed both vehicles on the opposite lane, a double continuous yellow centerline, and damage consistent with the bus’s front-right striking the jitney’s left. From these circumstantial facts, the Court concluded that (a) overtaking by the bus in a prohibited zone and at an intersection was the most logical explanation, (b) such an accident would not ordinarily occur without negligence, and (c) Dimayuga had exclusive control over the bus. The possibility that Ramirez’s conduct caused the collision was not sufficiently established by evidence. Accordingly, the Court applied res ipsa loquitur, placing the burden on JAM to explain the occurrence, which JAM failed to do.

Employer Liability and Presumption in Quasi-Delict

Having found the bus driver liable for negligence, the Court applied Civil Code principles on quasi-delict and employer responsibility. Article 2176 establishes liability for acts/omissions causing damage by fault or negligence; Article 2180 makes the employer liable for acts of employees performed within the scope of their tasks. A presumption juris tantum arises that the employer failed in the duty of selection or supervision (culpa in eligendo or culpa in vigilando). To escape liability, an employer must present convincing proof that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in selecting and supervising employees. JAM did not adduce such proof; it relied only on Dimayuga’s testimony and presented no documentary evidence. Consequently, the Court held JAM solidarily liable with Dimayuga.

Assessment and Awards for Damages

The Supreme Court modified the RTC’s

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-17-3639)

Procedural History

Petitioner Luz Palanca Tan filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, Santa Cruz, Laguna (Civil Case No. SC-3838) seeking damages for an automobile collision on March 14, 1997 involving her passenger-type jitney (plate DKF-168) and a JAM Transit passenger bus (plate DVG-557, body no. 8030) driven by Eddie Dimayuga.
The RTC, applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, found the JAM passenger bus driver at fault and rendered judgment in favor of Tan on December 20, 2006, awarding specified amounts for damages, medical expenses, moral damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
JAM Transit, Inc. appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 89046. The CA, by Decision dated June 2, 2008, granted the appeal and dismissed the complaint on the ground that the record did not support the RTC’s finding that the JAM bus overtook the jitney and that res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable because direct evidence was accessible but not produced by petitioner.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, which issued the decision summarized herein on November 25, 2009 (G.R. No. 183198).

Facts as Alleged by Petitioner

Petitioner Luz Palanca Tan alleged ownership of a passenger-type jitney (plate DKF-168) that on March 14, 1997, at about 5:00 a.m., was involved in an accident at an intersection along Maharlika Highway, Barangay Bangyas, Calauan, Laguna.
The jitney, driven by Alexander M. Ramirez and carrying quail and duck eggs (balot and salted eggs), was about to negotiate a left turn toward a feeder/barangay road to Poblacion when it was collided with by a JAM Transit passenger bus bound for Manila driven by Eddie Dimayuga.
The collision caused the jitney to turn turtle on the road shoulder, destroyed its cargo of eggs, and injured Ramirez and his helper, who were hospitalized. Petitioner asserted negligence, recklessness, imprudence, and violation of traffic rules by Dimayuga, and sought damages for the vehicle, cargo, medical expenses, moral damages, attorney’s fees, and other reliefs.

Facts as Presented by Respondent (JAM) and Counterclaim

JAM Transit, Inc. admitted ownership of the bus and that Dimayuga was its employee but denied petitioner’s allegations and asserted that the accident occurred due to the gross negligence of Ramirez, the jitney driver.
As a counterclaim, JAM sought P100,000.00 for bus damages, P100,000.00 for loss of income, and P50,000.00 for attorney’s fees plus P3,000.00 per court appearance.
JAM’s primary testimonial evidence came from its driver, Edgardo (Eddie) Dimayuga, who testified that he was driving at about 40 km/h when a vehicle overtook the bus from the right, leaving no way for him to evade and resulting in the accident. JAM did not present documentary counter-evidence.

Testimonial Evidence Offered by Petitioner (Summaries)

Luz Palanca Tan:
- Owner of the jitney and engaged in egg dealership; supplies to San Pablo and Lucena.
- Informed by her husband that her jeepney loaded with eggs was bumped by a JAM Transit bus.
- Asserted damages totaling P650,000.00 (P400,000.00 for jitney per Exhibit D estimate; P142,000.00 for lost eggs per police certification; P15,000.00 for hospitalization).
- Testified that driver Ramirez had worked for her since 1993; no prior accidents reported by her knowledge; she did not request NBI or police clearance upon hiring.
Alexander Ramirez (jitney driver):
- Employed by petitioner since 1993; sometimes drove jeepney or truck.
- On March 13/14, 1997 at about 5:00 a.m., while driving the loaded jitney on Maharlika Road, met an accident causing the jitney to turn turtle; limited recollection of how the collision occurred.
PO3 Daniel C. Escares (PNP-Calauan):
- Investigated the scene, prepared a certification (Exhibit B) and a sketch (Exhibit F to F-7).
- Described the highway as approximately 10 meters wide with a shoulder about five meters (reduced to two meters due to encroachment), having a double continuous yellow line at center (no overtaking) and a painted crosswalk.
- Identified and authenticated photographs (Exhibits E to E-6) as representing the scene and damages immediately after the incident; testified to interviewing local residents and gathering information.
Rodrigo Condino (mechanic):
- Mechanic of Plantilla Motors; prepared an estimate (Exhibit D) of repair costs for petitioner’s jeepney, amounting to P450,000.00 (estimate reflected in trial record).

Documentary and Physical Evidence Submitted by Petitioner

Exhibit A: Articles of Incorporation of JAM Transit, Inc.
Exhibit B: Certification issued by Calauan Municipal Police Station regarding the vehicular accident (entries adopted from police blotter).
Exhibit C: PNP-Calauan Police Report regarding the jitney shipment (certificate for cargo loss).
Exhibit D: Estimate of damages for the jitney from A. Plantilla Motors Repair Shop.
Exhibit E (and E-1 to E-6): Six photographs depicting the accident site and the relative positions/damages of the vehicles immediately after the collision.
Exhibit F: Four pages of receipts representing hospital and medical expenses paid by petitioner for injuries of driver and helper; also referenced as sketch/exhibit F for site drawing.
Exhibit G: Certificate of Registration of petitioner’s jitney.
Exhibit H: Driver’s license of Eddie Dimayuga (JAM’s bus driver).
Exhibit I: Sketch of the accident site (related to Exhibit F).

Court of First Instance (RTC) Ruling

RTC applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and found the JAM passenger bus driver negligent for violating traffic regulation at the time of collision.
RTC rendered judgment ordering defendants to pay jointly and solidarily:
- P142,210.00 for lost/damaged cargo;
- P400,000.00 for destroyed jitney;
- P1,327.00 for medical expenses of driver and companion;
- Total award amounting to P543,537.00 (as recited in RTC decision);
- P10,000.00 as moral damages;
- P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees;
- Costs of suit.
RTC reasoning emphasized photographs, sketch, police report, and application of res ipsa loquitur to infer negligence by the bus driver.

Court of Appeals (CA) Ruling and Reasoning

The CA reversed and dismissed the complaint on the ground that the record did not support the RTC’s finding that the JAM bus was overtaking the jitney.
CA noted that Ramirez’s testimony was limited to saying he met an accident and did not vividly recall how the bus struck the jitney; the certification (Exhibit B) did not state the bus was overspeeding or overtaking.
CA held the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applicable only when direct evidence is nonexistent or not accessible; it found petitioner had access to direct evidence (e.g., Ramirez and his companion) and that petitioner’s failure to produce such direct testimony meant res ipsa loquitur could not be invoked to dispense with proof of negligence.
CA also discounted probative value of the police blotter-derived certifi