Title
Travel and Tours Advisers, Inc. vs. Cruz, Sr.
Case
G.R. No. 199282
Decision Date
Mar 14, 2016
A 1998 collision between a bus and jeepney caused fatalities and injuries. Courts ruled both drivers negligent, reducing damages by 50% due to contributory fault.
negligence
collision
bus company

Case Summary (G.R. No. 199282)

Events Leading to the Complaint

Respondent Edgar Hernandez was driving an Isuzu Passenger Jitney owned by him, bearing plate number DSG-944, traveling along Angeles-Magalang Road. At the same time, a Daewoo passenger bus bearing plate number NXM-116, owned by petitioner Travel & Tours Advisers, Incorporated, and driven by Edgar Calaycay, was also traveling in the same direction.

The bus bumped the rear portion of the jeepney, which caused the jeepney to ram into an acacia tree. The collision resulted in the death of Alberto Cruz, Jr. and serious physical injuries to Virginia Munoz.

Consequently, respondents Edgar Hernandez, Virginia Munoz, and Alberto Cruz, Sr. (as father of the deceased) instituted an action for damages, alleging that the collision was due to the reckless, negligent, and imprudent driving of the bus driver, in disregard of traffic laws, rules, and regulations. They impleaded both the driver Edgar Calaycay and petitioner bus company, and prayed for actual, moral, and other damages, including attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.

Petitioner’s Defense and The Theory of Liability

Petitioner denied negligence and asserted that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employee driver. Petitioner also blamed the jeepney driver, alleging that Edgar Hernandez entered petitioner’s bus lane without ensuring that the road was clear.

Petitioner further claimed that the accident occurred while both vehicles violated route-related limitations: (a) it alleged that Edgar Hernandez was violating a franchise by traveling along an unauthorized route, (b) that the jeepney was overloaded with passengers, and (c) that Alberto Cruz, Jr. was clinging at the back of the jeepney, implying contributory negligence on the part of the jeepney and its passengers.

RTC Judgment

After trial, the RTC ruled in favor of respondents and held petitioner and the bus driver jointly and solidarily liable for damages. The RTC awarded, in substance, actual or compensatory damages, damages for loss of earning capacity and moral damages to the heirs of Alberto Cruz, Jr., actual and moral damages to Virginia Munoz, and actual and compensatory damages to Edgar Hernandez, together with attorney’s fees and litigation costs.

Although the decision’s dispositive portion used specific amounts, the material legal premise of liability rested on negligence attributable to petitioner’s bus driver and the employer’s failure to overturn the presumption of lack of due diligence under Article 2180.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On appeal, the Court of Appeals partly granted petitioner’s appeal but affirmed with modifications the RTC ruling. The CA sustained the finding that both vehicles were not in their authorized routes at the time of the accident, but concluded that negligence attributable to petitioner’s bus driver remained the proximate cause of the collision. The CA modified the computation and structure of certain awards, including civil indemnity for the death, and retained the attorney’s fees and cost of litigation as awarded by the RTC.

Issues Raised in the Petition

Petitioner’s Rule 45 petition raised issues largely directed at factual determinations: whether petitioner’s bus was actually “out of line,” whether the manner of impact proved negligence by the bus driver, whether the deceased’s position indicated violation of traffic rules or overloading, whether petitioner exercised extraordinary diligence in selection and supervision, and whether there was a factual and legal basis for the awards of damages.

Scope of Review Under Rule 45

The Supreme Court reiterated the general principle that in a Rule 45 petition from the Court of Appeals, its review is limited to errors of law, because the CA’s factual findings are generally conclusive. The Court recognized exceptions that allow review of facts, but it found that petitioner’s issues were purely factual and did not fall within the enumerated exceptions. It further noted that the RTC and CA made findings in agreement with each other, reinforcing the restraint against reweighing evidence.

Authorized Route Controversy: “Veering Away” Versus Being “Out of Line”

Even so, the Court reviewed the legal character of the route-related facts. The RTC and CA were one in finding that both vehicles were not in their authorized routes when the accident occurred. The CA relied on the bus conductor’s admission on cross-examination that, contrary to the usual route, the bus took Magalang Road instead of the usual route because there was heavy traffic at Bamban, Tarlac. The CA held that the bus therefore veered from its usual route, and that the attempted justification about route closures due to lahar construction did not negate the admitted deviation.

On the bus company’s invocation of its PUB franchise for provincial operation between Manila–Ilocos Norte/Cagayan–Manila, the Court clarified a doctrinal distinction: “veering away from the usual route” could be different from being “out of line.” It held that a public utility vehicle may veer from its usual route so long as it does not go beyond the boundaries of its franchise route. Thus, the bus could not be treated as having violated the contents of its franchise.

However, the Court emphasized that the jeepney plainly traversed a road out of its allowed route. As only one party violated a traffic regulation, the case was not treated as one of in pari delicto, and the Court considered that Article 2185 merely creates a presumption of negligence against the driver who violates traffic regulations, but it does not conclusively determine liability.

Proximate Cause: Presumption for Rear-End Collisions

The Supreme Court found that the proximate cause of the collision was the negligence of petitioner’s bus driver. It applied the long-standing rule that drivers who bump the rear of another vehicle are presumed to be the cause of the accident unless contradicted by other evidence. The rationale was that the rear vehicle driver has control of the situation and is in a position to observe the vehicle ahead.

The Court held that the bus company failed to rebut the presumption. It considered the testimony of Edgar Hernandez and Virginia Munoz, both of whom described that the bus struck the jeepney at its rear left portion, which resulted in the jeepney being thrown into an acacia tree and in Alberto Cruz, Jr.’s death and Virginia Munoz’s injuries.

The bus conductor’s claim that the jeepney “suddenly appeared” diagonally before the bus did not persuade the Court because it was inconsistent with the physical damage and photographs of the jeepney. The Court adopted the RTC’s reasoning that, based on where the impact markings and damage were found, the collision could not have occurred when the jeepney was in a diagonal position to the bus. The Court also found that the testimony and circumstances supported that the bus was running very fast, and that even assuming ex gratia that the jeepney was initially stopped, a cautious driver should have braked and slowed down to allow the jeepney to fully merge into the lane. The Court further rejected the attempt to justify braking failure for the first time on appeal for lack of supporting evidence. It stressed that excessive speed, in connection with surrounding circumstances, indicated imprudent driving because a motorist must exercise ordinary care and maintain a speed that keeps control and avoids injury.

Contributory Negligence of the Jeepney Driver

While petitioner remained liable because the proximate cause was traced to its bus driver’s negligence, the Court found contributory negligence attributable to respondent Edgar Hernandez, the owner and driver of the jeepney. It recognized that the jeepney was in violation of its allowed route; thus, the jeepney driver was negligent under Article 2179.

The Court also rejected petitioner’s claim that Alberto Cruz, Jr. was clinging at the running board at the time of the accident, thereby implying overloading. It agreed with the CA that the evidence did not establish this factual assertion. The Court noted that Virginia Munoz testified that there were about sixteen passengers on board, which effectively contradicted claims of overloading, given that Edgar Hernandez stated the jeepney’s seating capacity was twenty. The defense’s failure to cross-examine Virginia Munoz, despite her being the “best witness” on the deceased passenger’s location, was fatal. The bus conductor’s testimony was also discounted because he admitted that he did not actually see what happened, contradicting his earlier assertion that he was knowledgeable of the circumstances.

Accordingly, the contributory negligence found by the Court related to the jeepney’s violation of route-related traffic regulation, rather than to a proven overloading or the precise location of the deceased within the jeepney.

Employer’s Liability and Failure to Prove Due Diligence Under Article 2180

The Supreme Court sustained petitioner’s liability as employer and owner. It held that, under Article 2176 and Article 2180, the employer is liable for the tortious acts or negligence of an employee acting within the scope of assigned tasks. It further held that the employer’s liability arises from a presumption: when an employee’s negligence causes damage, the law presumes the employer failed in selection or supervision. To avoid liability, the employer must prove due diligence of a good father of a family in selection and supervision.

The Court agreed with the RTC and CA that petitioner failed to overcome the presumption. The RTC found that petitioner did not present concrete evidence that the bus driver had undergone alleged seminars, had been properly examined, or had undergone medical or drug testing as claimed. It also found omissions in records and inconsistencies in petitioner’s evidence, including uncertainty as to the driver’s correct name and lack of proof regar

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms