Title
Tison vs. Spouses Pomasin
Case
G.R. No. 173180
Decision Date
Aug 24, 2011
A 1994 vehicular accident involving a tractor-trailer and a jitney resulted in fatalities and injuries. The Supreme Court ruled Laarni Pomasin’s negligence as the proximate cause, dismissing claims against the tractor-trailer driver and owner, and invalidating an Affidavit of Desistance.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 173180)

Factual Background

On 12 August 1994, the jitney descended a curved, downward stretch when it allegedly fell onto the shoulder, swerved into the opposite lane, and collided with the ascending tractor-trailer. Petitioners’ driver Jabon testified that the jitney zigzagged and struck his right side after he had swerved to avoid it. Respondents’ passenger Gregorio maintained that the truck encroached on their lane at excessive speed, causing the impact that killed and injured numerous passengers.

Procedural Posture

Respondents filed a damage suit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo on 14 November 1994, alleging negligence by petitioners and seeking indemnities, moral and exemplary damages, and litigation costs. The RTC dismissed the complaint on 7 February 2000, crediting Jabon’s version and upholding an Affidavit of Desistance executed by Cynthia Pomasin. The Court of Appeals reversed in 2006, finding Jabon’s speed—contrary to his license restrictions—reckless and holding Tison liable for negligent hiring. Petitioners thereafter filed this petition for review.

Issue on Fault and Credibility

At the core is which driver’s negligence caused the collision. The factual determination hinges on the credibility and vantage point of a driver versus a passenger. The RTC found Jabon’s continuous focus and clear testimony more credible than Gregorio’s shifting statements. The CA gave greater weight to Gregorio’s account and drew an inference of speeding from the severity of damage.

Applicable Law under the 1987 Constitution

Because the decision date is post-1990, the 1987 Constitution governs. Liability for quasi-delict rests on Article 2176 of the Civil Code: fault or negligence, damage, and causal link. Article 2185 creates a presumption of negligence upon violation of traffic regulations, but jurisprudence (Sanitary Steam Laundry, AAonuevo) requires proof that the violation proximately caused the harm.

Trial Court’s Finding of Negligence

The RTC emphasized the split-second nature of vehicular collisions and the driver’s superior observational opportunity. It noted Gregorio’s original description of a downward curve aligned with Jabon’s testimony of an ascending truck meeting a descending jitney. Gregorio’s later claim that the jitney was uphill and the truck fell into their lane was deemed inconsistent. The court concluded Laarni’s loss of control, not Jabon’s conduct, was the proximate cause.

Court of Appeals’ Contrary Conclusion

The CA inferred negligence from the impact’s gravity and noted Jabon’s license restrictions. It held that petitioners failed to prove due diligence in supervising him. It also invalidated Cynthia’s Affidavit of Desistance for lack of written authority and capacity, ordering partial awards to respondents.

Supreme Court Analysis and Reconciliation of Findings

Under settled rules, appellat

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.