G.R. No. L-21477-81 - Viluan vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-21477-81)

Factual Background

Seven persons were killed and thirteen others were injured in Bangar, La Union, on February 16, 1958, when a passenger bus owned by Francisca Viluan and driven by Hermenegildo Aquino caught fire after striking a post and crashing against a tree. The Viluan bus was proceeding from San Fernando, La Union to Candon, Ilocos Sur. As it neared the gate of the Gabaldon school building in Bangar, another bus owned by Patricio Hufana and driven by Gregorio Hufana attempted to overtake. Instead of giving way, Aquino increased speed and engaged in a race with the overtaking bus, lost control, struck a post, crashed into a tree and the bus then burst into flames. Among those killed were Timoteo Mapanao, Francisca Lacsamana, Narcisa Mendoza and Gregorio Sibayan; passenger Carolina Sabado was among the injured.

Trial Court Proceedings

Heirs of the deceased and the injured passenger instituted actions for damages for breach of contract of carriage in the Court of First Instance of La Union against Francisca Viluan and her driver Hermenegildo Aquino. In their answer the defendants blamed Gregorio Hufana for the accident and, with leave of court, the Viluan defendants filed third-party complaints against Gregorio Hufana and his employer Patricio Hufana. After trial, the court found concurrent negligence of the two drivers and held the defendants and third-party defendants jointly and severally liable. The court awarded specified sums for actual and moral damages and attorney’s fees to the several plaintiffs, including P5,000 and P1,000 moral damages for the death of Timoteo Mapanao, P4,000 and P1,000 moral damages for other deaths, and P649 and P1,500 moral damages for the injured passenger Carolina Sabado; interest at six percent per annum and proportionate costs were ordered.

Court of Appeals’ Ruling

On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed that the accident resulted from concurrent negligence but altered the allocation of liability. The appellate court held that only Francisca Viluan, as common carrier and operator of the bus, was liable to the plaintiffs for breach of contract of carriage. It concluded that Hermenegildo Aquino, being an employee, could not be made jointly and severally liable with the employer in a contractual action, although Aquino could be held criminally and civilly under the Revised Penal Code (Articles 100 and 103). The Court of Appeals further held that Patricio Hufana and Gregorio Hufana could not be held liable because the plaintiffs had not amended their complaints to assert claims against the third-party defendants. The appellate court also disallowed the award of P1,000 moral damages to Carolina Sabado for lack of proof of fraud or bad faith by the common carrier, and rendered judgment declaring Francisca Viluan solely liable as modified.

Issues Presented on Appeal

On appeal to the Supreme Court Francisca Viluan contended that because the trial court found the proximate cause to be the concurrent negligence of the two drivers, she and Patricio Hufana and Gregorio Hufana should have been held equally liable to the plaintiffs. She argued that the fact that the respondents were impleaded as third-party defendants rather than named originally as principal defendants should not bar a finding of their liability.

Supreme Court’s Analysis of the Third-Party Procedure

The Supreme Court examined the Court of Appeals’ reliance on section 5 of Rule 12 of the former Rules of Court, a provision adopted from Rule 14-a of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court explained that the federal rule and its local counterpart covered two distinct situations: (a) the addition of parties defendant to the main cause of action and (b) the bringing in of a third party for the defendant’s remedy over. The Court cited Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 52 F. Supp. 177 (1943) to demonstrate that where a third-party complaint alleges facts showing the third party’s direct liability to the plaintiff on the claim set out in the plaintiff’s petition, no amendment of the plaintiff’s complaint is necessary and the plaintiff and third-party defendant are at issue without formal amendment.

Application of the Rule to the Case

Applying that analysis, the Supreme Court observed that the third-party complaints filed by Francisca Viluan and Hermenegildo Aquino did allege the direct liability of Gregorio Hufana to the plaintiffs. The third-party pleadings averred that the accident was due to the negligence of Gregorio Hufana and the motion for leave to file a third-party complaint explicitly stated that Patricio Hufana and Gregorio Hufana were not originally made parties although the defendants were entitled to indemnity and/or subrogation against them as to the plaintiffs’ claims. The Court held that, since the third-party complaints asserted direct liability of the respondents to the plaintiffs, insistence on formal amendment would be merely a matter of form and contrary to the liberal spirit of the Rules of Court.

Precedential Support and Nature of Liability

The Supreme Court reaffirmed earlier jurisprudence that, in cases where a passenger is injured due to the negligence of the driver of the bus on which he rode and of the driver of another vehicle, the drivers and the owners of both vehicles were jointly and severally liable for damages, citing Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 56 Phil. 177, and Paulan v. Sarabia, G.R. No. L-10542, July 31, 1958. The Court noted that some members were of the view that under the circum

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-21477-81)

Parties and Posture

Francisca Viluan, Petitioner, owned the passenger bus involved in the accident and appealed from the Court of Appeals' judgment.
The Court of Appeals, Patricio Hufana and Gregorio Hufana, Respondents, appeared as appellees in the Supreme Court appeal.
Hermenegildo Aquino was the driver of petitioner's bus and was impleaded as a defendant below.
The original suits for damages were filed by heirs of deceased passengers and by injured passenger Carolina Sabado in the Court of First Instance of La Union.

Key Facts

Seven persons were killed and thirteen were injured when a passenger bus owned by Francisca Viluan struck a post, crashed into a tree and caught fire.
The Viluan bus and a bus owned by Patricio Hufana and driven by Gregorio Hufana engaged in a speed contest near a school gate in Bangar, La Union.
The Viluan bus driver, Hermenegildo Aquino, increased speed while being overtaken and lost control leading to the collision and fire.
Plaintiffs sued Francisca Viluan and Hermenegildo Aquino for breach of contract of carriage, and petitioner and her driver filed third-party complaints against Patricio Hufana and Gregorio Hufana alleging direct liability.

Procedural History

The Court of First Instance rendered judgment finding concurrent negligence of both drivers and held defendants and third-party defendants jointly and severally liable for specified damages.
The Court of Appeals affirmed concurrent negligence but held only Francisca Viluan liable on the theory that the driver was not a party to the contract of carriage and that third-party defendants could not be held because plaintiffs had not amended their complaints.
Francisca Viluan appealed the Court of Appeals' limitation of liability to the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented

Whether third-party defendants who were impleaded for direct liability may be adjudged liable to plaintiffs without an amendment of the plaintiffs' complaints.
Whether the driver may be held jointly and severally liable with the common carrier for breach of contract of carriage.
Whether owners and drivers of separate vehicles whose concurrent negligence caused injury to passengers are jointly and severally liable.
Whether moral damages in the amount of P1,000.00 should be awarded to injured plaintiff Carolina Sabado.

Contentions

Petitioner contended that concurrent negligence established equal liability of her and the Hufanas and that impleading them as third-party defendants alleging direct liability sufficed without formal amendment by plaintiffs.
The Court of Appeals contended that the driver could not be made jointly and severally liable under a contract of carriage and that third-party defendants could not be held because plaintiffs had not amended their complaints.
The Court of Appeals further contended that Hermenegildo Aquino could be liable criminally under the Revised Penal Code (Article 100 and 103) but not civilly under the contract claim.

Lower Court Ruling

The trial court adjudged plaintiffs entitled to specific sums for actual and moral