[G.R. No. 130003. October 20, 2004]

JONAS AÑONUEVO, petitioner vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and JEROME VILLAGRACIA, respondent

Tinga, J.

FACTS Villagracia was traveling along Boni Ave. on his bicycle, while Añonuevo, traversing the opposite lane was driving a Lancer car owned by Procter and Gamble Inc., the employer of Añonuevo’s brother. Añonuevo was in the course of making a left turn towards Libertad Street when the collision occurred. Villagracia sustained serious injuries and had to undergo four operations. Villagracia instituted an action for damages against P&G Phils., Inc. and Añonuevo before the RTC. He had also filed a criminal complaint against Añonuevo before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong, but the latter was subsequently acquitted of the criminal charge. Añonuevo claims that Villagracia violated traffic regulations when he failed to register his bicycle or install safety gadgets. He posits that Article 2185 of the Civil Code applies by analogy.

Article 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap he was violating any traffic regulation.

1. W/N Art. 2185 of the New Civil Code should apply to non-motorized vehicles, making Villagracia presumptively negligent --> N There is pertinent basis for segregating between motorized and non-motorized vehicles. A motorized vehicle, unimpeded by the limitations in physical exertion. is capable of greater speeds and acceleration than non-motorized vehicles. At the same time, motorized vehicles are more capable in inflicting greater injury or damage in the event of an accident or collision. This is due to a combination of factors peculiar to the motor vehicle, such as the greater speed, its relative greater bulk of mass, and greater combustibility due to the use of fuel. 2. W/N Villagracia was negligent for failure to comply with traffic regulations --> N The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by the personal judgment of the actor in a given situation, but rather, it is the law which determines what would be reckless or negligent. Añonuevo asserts that Villagracia was negligent as the latter had transgressed traffic regulations. However, Añonuevo was speeding as he made the left turn, and such negligent act was the proximate cause of the accident. Even assuming that Añonuevo had failed to see Villagracia because the bicycle was not equipped with headlights, such lapse on the cyclist’s part would not have acquitted the driver of his duty to slow down as he proceeded to make the left turn. 3. W/N Villagracia is guilty of contributory negligence --> N As between Añonuevo and Villagracia, the lower courts adjudged Añonuevo as solely responsible for the accident. The petition does not demonstrate why this finding should be reversed. It is hard to imagine that the same result would not have occurred even if Villagracia’s bicycle had been equipped with safety equipment.

Bianca Danica Santiago Villarama