Title
Supreme Court
Tiu vs. Arriesgado
Case
G.R. No. 138060
Decision Date
Sep 1, 2004
A vehicular accident involving a bus and a stalled truck led to injuries and death. Courts ruled both drivers negligent, holding bus operator, truck owner, and insurer jointly liable for damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 114742)

Facts of the Incident

On March 15–16, 1987, a cargo truck owned by Condor and driven by Pedrano suffered a tire blowout, stalled obliquely on a well-lit highway in Compostela, Cebu, and displayed only its tail lights. Early warning devices required by law were absent. At 4:45 a.m., the Da Rough Riders passenger bus, approaching at high speed, struck the truck’s rear, fracturing Arriesgado’s wrist and causing the death of his wife, Felisa.

Contract of Carriage and Claim

Arriesgado had paid P18 for transport from Maya to Cebu City under a passenger contract. He alleged breach of the common-carrier obligation of extraordinary diligence, reckless driving by Te Laspiñas, and owner Tiu’s failure to supervise, seeking damages for death, medical and burial expenses, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation costs.

Trial Court Decision

The Regional Trial Court found that Te Laspiñas drove at excessive speed in violation of traffic regulations, that Tiu failed to prove extraordinary diligence, and that Pedrano’s omission of early-warning devices did not excuse carrier negligence. Judgment awarded Arriesgado P38,441.50 in actual damages, P50,000 moral, P50,000 exemplary damages, P20,000 attorney’s fees, and P5,000 costs.

Appellate Court Decision

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, reducing moral and exemplary damages to P25,000 each. It held that Tiu, as common carrier under the 1987 Constitution’s public-service obligations and Articles 1733, 1755–1756 of the Civil Code, bore contractual liability for passenger safety. PPSII was absolved due to lack of evidence.

Issues on Further Review

Petitioners challenged (1) negligence findings against Pedrano and Condor, (2) carrier negligence of Tiu and Te Laspiñas, (3) awards of exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, litigation costs, and (4) PPSII’s liability under the insurance contract.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Driver Negligence

Factual findings that Te Laspiñas saw the stalled truck 25 m away and failed to brake or swerve safely were upheld as final. At night with no opposing traffic, avoidance was feasible. Speeds of 40–50 kph exceeded the 30 kph bridge limit and breached Section 35, Land Transportation and Traffic Code. Article 2185, Civil Code, presumes negligence when traffic laws are violated.

Contractual Liability of Common Carrier

Under the 1987 Constitution’s public-service norms and Civil Code Articles 1733 and 1755, a common carrier must exercise extraordinary diligence. The collision being a breach of safe carriage, negligence is presumed (Art. 1756). Tiu failed to rebut this by proving utmost diligence or fortuitous cause; driver negligence binds the carrier.

Liability of Third-Party Defendants (Pedrano and Condor)

Pedrano’s violation of Section 34(g), Land Transportation and Traffic Code, in parking without warning devices created an unreasonable hazard. Under Article 2180, Civil Code, an employer’s liability is presumed for an employee’s negligence unless due diligence is shown. Neither Condor nor Pedrano rebutted this presumption.

Insurer’s Liability under CMVLI

The Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance contract (Certificate of Cover No. 054940) imposed direct insurer liability to third parties up to P12,000 per person and P50,000 per





...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.