G.R.$No.$115024$$$$$$$$$$$$$February$7,$1996!

MA.$LOURDES$VALENZUELA,!petitioner,!!vs.!COURT$OF$APPEALS,$RICHARD$LI$and$ALEXANDER$COMMERCIAL,$INC.,!respondents.!

x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x!

G.R.$No.$117944$$$$$$$$$$$$$February$7,$1996!

RICHARD$LI,!petitioner,!!vs.!COURT$OF$APPEALS$and$LOURDES$VALENZUELA,$respondents.!

D$E$C$I$S$I$O$N!

KAPUNAN,$J.:!

These!two!petitions!for!review!on!certiorari!under!Rule!45!of!the!Revised!Rules!of!Court!stem!from!an!action!to!recover!damages!by!petitioner!Lourdes!Valenzuela!in!the!Regional!Trial!Court!of!Quezon!City!for!injuries!sustained!by!her!in!a!vehicular!accident!in!the!early!morning!of!June!24,!1990.!The!facts!found!by!the!trial!court!are!succinctly!summarized!by!the!Court!of!Appeals!below:!

This!is!an!action!to!recover!damages!based!on!quasi/delict,!for!serious!physical!injuries!sustained!in!a!vehicular!accident.!

Plaintiff's!version!of!the!accident!is!as!follows:!At!around!2:00!in!the!morning!of!June!24,!1990,!plaintiff!Ma.!Lourdes!Valenzuela!was!driving!a!blue!Mitsubishi!lancer!with!Plate!No.!FFU!542!from!her!restaurant!at!Marcos!highway!to!her!home!at!Palanza!Street,!Araneta!Avenue.!She!was!travelling!along!Aurora!Blvd.!with!a!companion,!Cecilia!Ramon,!heading!towards!the!direction!of!Manila.!Before!reaching!A.!Lake!Street,!she!noticed!something!wrong!with!her!tires;!she!stopped!at!a!lighted!place!where!there!were!people,!to!verify!whether!she!had!a!flat!tire!and!to!solicit!help!if!needed.!Having!been!told!by!the!people!present!that!her!rear!right!tire!was!flat!and!that!she!cannot!reach!her!home!in!that!car's!condition,!she!parked!along!the!sidewalk,!about!1/1/2!feet!away,!put!on!her!emergency!lights,!alighted!from!the!car,!and!went!to!the!rear!to!open!the!trunk.!She!was!standing!at!the!left!side!of!the!rear!of!her!car!pointing!to!the!tools!to!a!man!who!will!help!her!fix!the!tire!when!she!was!suddenly!bumped!by!a!1987!Mitsubishi!Lancer!driven!by!defendant!Richard!Li!and!registered!in!the!name!of!defendant!Alexander!Commercial,!Inc.!Because!of!the!impact!plaintiff!was!thrown!against!the!windshield!of!the!car!of!the!defendant,!which!was!destroyed,!and!then!fell!to!the!ground.!She!was!pulled!out!from!under!defendant's!car.!Plaintiff's!left!leg!was!severed!up!to!the!middle!of!her!thigh,!with!only!some!skin!and!sucle!connected!to!the!rest!of!the!body.!She!was!brought!to!the!UERM!Medical!Memorial!Center!where!she!was!found!to!have!a!"traumatic!amputation,!leg,!left!up!to!distal!thigh!(above!knee)".!She!was!confined!in!the!hospital!for!twenty!(20)!days!and!was!eventually!fitted!with!an!artificial!leg.!The!expenses!for!the!hospital!confinement!(P120,000.00)!and!the!cost!of!the!artificial!leg!(P27,000.00)!were!paid!by!defendants!from!the!car!insurance.!

In!her!complaint,!plaintiff!prayed!for!moral!damages!in!the!amount!of!P1!million,!exemplary!damages!in!the!amount!of!P100,000.00!and!other!medical!and!related!expenses!amounting!to!a!total!of!P180,000.00,!including!loss!of!expected!earnings.!

Defendant!Richard!Li!denied!that!he!was!negligent.!He!was!on!his!way!home,!travelling!at!55!kph;!considering!that!it!was!raining,!visibility!was!affected!and!the!road!was!wet.!Traffic!was!light.!He!testified!that!he!was!driving!along!the!inner!portion!of!the!right!lane!of!Aurora!Blvd.!towards!the!direction!of!Araneta!Avenue,!when!he!was!suddenly!confronted,!in!the!vicinity!of!A.!Lake!Street,!San!Juan,!with!a!car!coming!from!the!opposite!direction,!travelling!at!80!kph,!with!"full!bright!lights".!Temporarily!blinded,!he!instinctively!swerved!to!the!right!to!avoid!colliding!with!the!oncoming!vehicle,!and!bumped!plaintiff's!car,!which!he!did!not!see!because!it!was!midnight!blue!in!color,!with!no!parking!lights!or!early!warning!device,!and!the!area!was!poorly!lighted.!He!alleged!in!his!defense!that!the!left!rear!portion!of!plaintiff's!car!was!protruding!as!it!was!then!"at!a!standstill!diagonally"!on!the!outer!portion!of!the!right!lane!towards!Araneta!Avenue!(par.!18,!Answer).!He!confirmed!the!testimony!of!plaintiff's!witness!that!after!being!bumped!the!car!of!the!plaintiff!swerved!to!the!right!and!hit!another!car!parked!on!the!sidewalk.!Defendants!counterclaimed!for!damages,!alleging!that!plaintiff!was!reckless!or!negligent,!as!she!was!not!a!licensed!driver.!

The!police!investigator,!Pfc.!Felic!Ramos,!who!prepared!the!vehicular!accident!report!and!the!sketch!of!the!three!cars!involved!in!the!accident,!testified!that!the!plaintiff's!car!was!"near!the!sidewalk";!this!witness!did!not!remember!whether!the!hazard!lights!of!plaintiff's!car!were!on,!and!did!not!notice!if!there!was!an!early!warning!device;!there!was!a!street!light!at!the!corner!of!Aurora!Blvd.!and!F.!Roman,!about!100!meters!away.!It!was!not!mostly!dark,!i.e.!"things!can!be!seen"!(p.!16,!tsn,!Oct.!28,!1991).!

A!witness!for!the!plaintiff,!Rogelio!Rodriguez,!testified!that!after!plaintiff!alighted!from!her!car!and!opened!the!trunk!compartment,!defendant's!car!came!approaching!very!fast!ten!meters!from!the!scene;!the!car!was!"zigzagging".!The!rear!left!side!of!plaintiff's!car!was!bumped!by!the!front!right!portion!of!defendant's!car;!as!a!consequence,!the!plaintiff's!car!swerved!to!the!right!and!hit!the!parked!car!on!the!sidewalk.!Plaintiff!was!thrown!to!the!windshield!of!defendant's!car,!which!was!destroyed,!and!landed!under!the!car.!He!stated!that!defendant!was!under!the!influence!of!liquor!as!he!could!"smell!it!very!well"!(pp.!43,!79,!tsn,!June!17,!1991).!

After!trial,!the!lower!court!sustained!the!plaintiff's!submissions!and!found!defendant!Richard!Li!guilty!of!gross!negligence!and!liable!for!damages!under!Article!2176!of!the!Civil!Code.!The!trial!court!likewise!held!Alexander!Commercial,!Inc.,!Li's!employer,!jointly!and!severally!liable!for!damages!pursuant!to!Article!2180.!It!ordered!the!defendants!to!jointly!and!severally!pay!the!following!amounts:!

1.!P41,840.00,!as!actual!damages,!representing!the!miscellaneous!expenses!of!the!plaintiff!as!a!result!of!her!severed!left!leg;!

2.!The!sums!of!(a)!P37,500.00,!for!the!unrealized!profits!because!of!the!stoppage!of!plaintiff's!Bistro!La!Conga!restaurant!three!(3)!weeks!after!the!accident!on!June!24,!1990;!(b)!P20,000.00,!a!month,!as!unrealized!profits!of!the!plaintiff!in!her!Bistro!La!Conga!restaurant,!from!August,!1990!until!the!date!of!this!judgment!and!(c)!P30,000.00,!a!month!for!unrealized!profits!in!plaintiff's!two!(2)!beauty!salons!from!July,!1990!until!the!date!of!this!decision;!

3.!P1,000,000.00,!in!moral!damages;!

4.!P50,000.00,!as!exemplary!damages;5.!P60,000.00,!as!reasonable!attorney's!fees;!and!

6.!Costs.!

As!a!result!of!the!trial!court's!decision,!defendants!filed!an!Omnibus!Motion!for!New!Trial!and!for!Reconsideration,!citing!testimony!in!Criminal!Case!O.C.!No.!804367!(People!vs.!Richard!Li),!tending!to!show!that!the!point!of!impact,!as!depicted!by!the!pieces!of!glass/debris!from!the!parties'!cars,!appeared!to!be!at!the!center!of!the!right!lane!of!Aurora!Blvd.!The!trial!court!denied!the!motion.!Defendants!forthwith!filed!an!appeal!with!the!respondent!Court!of!Appeals.!In!a!Decision!rendered!March!30,!1994,!the!Court!of!Appeals!found!that!there!was!"ample!basis!from!the!evidence!of!record!for!the!trial!court's!finding!that!the!plaintiff's!car!was!properly!parked!at!the!right,!beside!the!sidewalk!when!it!was!bumped!by!defendant's!car."1!Dismissing!the!defendants'!argument!that!the!plaintiff's!car!was!improperly!parked,!almost!at!the!center!of!the!road,!the!respondent!court!noted!that!evidence!which!was!supposed!to!prove!that!the!car!was!at!or!near!center!of!the!right!lane!was!never!presented!during!the!trial!of!the!case.2!The!respondent!court!furthermore!observed!that:!

Defendant!Li's!testimony!that!he!was!driving!at!a!safe!speed!of!55!km./hour!is!self!serving;!it!was!not!corroborated.!It!was!in!fact!contradicted!by!eyewitness!Rodriguez!who!stated!that!he!was!outside!his!beerhouse!located!at!Aurora!Boulevard!after!A.!Lake!Street,!at!or!about!2:00!a.m.!of!June!24,!1990!when!his!attention!was!caught!by!a!beautiful!lady!(referring!to!the!plaintiff)!alighting!from!her!car!and!opening!the!trunk!compartment;!he!noticed!the!car!of!Richard!Li!"approaching!very!fast!ten!(10)!meters!away!from!the!scene";!defendant's!car!was!zigzagging",!although!there!were!no!holes!and!hazards!on!the!street,!and!"bumped!the!leg!of!the!plaintiff"!who!was!thrown!against!the!windshield!of!defendant's!care,!causing!its!destruction.!He!came!to!the!rescue!of!the!plaintiff,!who!was!pulled!out!from!under!defendant's!car!and!was!able!to!say!"hurting!words"!to!Richard!Li!because!he!noticed!that!the!latter!was!under!the!influence!of!liquor,!because!he!"could!smell!it!very!well"!(p.!36,!et.!seq.,!tsn,!June!17,!1991).!He!knew!that!plaintiff!owned!a!beerhouse!in!Sta.!Mesa!in!the!1970's,!but!did!not!know!either!plaintiff!or!defendant!Li!before!the!accident.!

In!agreeing!with!the!trial!court!that!the!defendant!Li!was!liable!for!the!injuries!sustained!by!the!plaintiff,!the!Court!of!Appeals,!in!its!decision,!however,!absolved!the!Li's!employer,!Alexander!Commercial,!Inc.!from!any!liability!towards!petitioner!Lourdes!Valenzuela!and!reduced!the!amount!of!moral!damages!to!P500,000.00.!Finding!justification!for!exemplary!damages,!the!respondent!court!allowed!an!award!of!P50,000.00!for!the!same,!in!addition!to!costs,!attorney's!fees!and!the!other!damages.!The!Court!of!Appeals,!likewise,!dismissed!the!defendants'!counterclaims.3!

Consequently,!both!parties!assail!the!respondent!court's!decision!by!filing!two!separate!petitions!before!this!Court.!Richard!Li,!in!G.R.!No.!117944,!contends!that!he!should!not!be!held!liable!for!damages!because!the!proximate!cause!of!the!accident!was!Ma.!Lourdes!Valenzuela's!own!negligence.!Alternatively,!he!argues!that!in!the!event!that!this!Court!finds!him!negligent,!such!negligence!ought!to!be!mitigated!by!the!contributory!negligence!of!Valenzuela.!

On!the!other!hand,!in!G.R.!No.!115024,!Ma.!Lourdes!Valenzuela!assails!the!respondent!court's!decision!insofar!as!it!absolves!Alexander!Commercial,!Inc.!from!liability!as!the!owner!of!the!car!driven!by!Richard!Li!and!insofar!as!it!reduces!the!amount!of!the!actual!and!moral!damages!awarded!by!the!trial!court.4!

As!the!issues!are!intimately!related,!both!petitions!are!hereby!consolidated.!

It!is!plainly!evident!that!the!petition!for!review!in!G.R.!No.!117944!raises!no!substantial!questions!of!law.!What!it,!in!effect,!attempts!to!have!this!Court!review!are!factual!findings!of!the!trial!court,!as!sustained!by!the!Court!of!Appeals!finding!Richard!Li!grossly!negligent!in!driving!the!Mitsubishi!Lancer!provided!by!his!company!in!the!early!morning!hours!of!June!24,!1990.!This!we!will!not!do.!As!a!general!rule,!findings!of!fact!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!are!binding!and!conclusive!upon!us,!and!this!Court!will!not!normally!disturb!such!factual!findings!unless!the!findings!of!fact!of!the!said!court!are!palpably!unsupported!by!the!evidence!on!record!or!unless!the!judgment!itself!is!based!on!a!misapprehension!of!facts.5!

In!the!first!place,!Valenzuela's!version!of!the!incident!was!fully!corroborated!by!an!uninterested!witness,!Rogelio!Rodriguez,!the!owner/operator!of!an!establishment!located!just!across!the!scene!of!the!accident.!On!trial,!he!testified!that!he!observed!a!car!being!driven!at!a!"very!fast"!speed,!racing!towards!the!general!direction!of!Araneta!Avenue.6!Rodriguez!further!added!that!he!was!standing!in!front!of!his!establishment,!just!ten!to!twenty!feet!away!from!the!scene!of!the!accident,!when!he!saw!the!car!hit!Valenzuela,!hurtling!her!against!the!windshield!of!the!defendant's!Mitsubishi!Lancer,!from!where!she!eventually!fell!under!the!defendant's!car.!Spontaneously!reacting!to!the!incident,!he!crossed!the!street,!noting!that!a!man!reeking!with!the!smell!of!liquor!had!alighted!from!the!offending!vehicle!in!order!to!survey!the!incident.7!Equally!important,!Rodriguez!declared!that!he!observed!Valenzuela's!car!parked!parallel!and!very!near!the!sidewalk,8!contrary!to!Li's!allegation!that!Valenzuela's!car!was!close!to!the!center!of!the!right!lane.!We!agree!that!as!between!Li's!"self/serving"!asseverations!and!the!observations!of!a!witness!who!did!not!even!know!the!accident!victim!personally!and!who!immediately!gave!a!statement!of!the!incident!similar!to!his!testimony!to!the!investigator!immediately!after!the!incident,!the!latter's!testimony!deserves!greater!weight.!As!the!court!emphasized:!

The!issue!is!one!of!credibility!and!from!Our!own!examination!of!the!transcript,!We!are!not!prepared!to!set!aside!the!trial!court's!reliance!on!the!testimony!of!Rodriguez!negating!defendant's!assertion!that!he!was!driving!at!a!safe!speed.!While!Rodriguez!drives!only!a!motorcycle,!his!perception!of!speed!is!not!necessarily!impaired.!He!was!subjected!to!cross/examination!and!no!attempt!was!made!to!question!.his!competence!or!the!accuracy!of!his!statement!that!defendant!was!driving!"very!fast".!This!was!the!same!statement!he!gave!to!the!police!investigator!after!the!incident,!as!told!to!a!newspaper!report!(Exh.!"P").!We!see!no!compelling!basis!for!disregarding!his!testimony.!

The!alleged!inconsistencies!in!Rodriguez'!testimony!are!not!borne!out!by!an!examination!of!the!testimony.!Rodriguez!testified!that!the!scene!of!the!accident!was!across!the!street!where!his!beerhouse!is!located!about!ten!to!twenty!feet!away!(pp.!35/36,!tsn,!June!17,!1991).!He!did!not!state!that!the!accident!transpired!immediately!in!front!of!his!establishment.!The!ownership!of!the!Lambingan!se!Kambingan!is!not!material;!the!business!is!registered!in!the!name!of!his!mother,!but!he!explained!that!he!owns!the!establishment!(p.!5,!tsn,!June!20,!1991).!Moreover,!the!testimony!that!the!streetlights!on!his!side!of!Aurora!Boulevard!were!on!the!night!the!accident!transpired!(p.!8)!is!not!necessarily!contradictory!to!the!testimony!of!Pfc.!Ramos!that!there!was!a!streetlight!at!the!corner!of!Aurora!Boulevard!and!F.!Roman!Street!(p.!45,!tsn,!Oct.!20,!1991).!

With!respect!to!the!weather!condition,!Rodriguez!testified!that!there!was!only!a!drizzle,!not!a!heavy!rain!and!the!rain!has!stopped!and!he!was!outside!his!establishment!at!the!time!the!accident!transpired!(pp.!64/65,!tsn,!June!17,!1991).!This!was!consistent!with!plaintiff's!testimony!that!it!was!no!longer!raining!when!she!left!Bistro!La!Conga!(pp.!10/11,!tsn,!April!29,!1991).!It!was!defendant!Li!who!stated!that!it!was!raining!all!the!way!in!an!attempt!to!explain!why!he!was!travelling!at!only!50/55!kph.!(p.!11,!tsn,!Oct.!14,!1991).!As!to!the!testimony!of!Pfc.!Ramos!that!it!was!raining,!he!arrived!at!the!scene!only!in!response!to!a!telephone!call!after!the!accident!had!transpired!(pp.!9/10,!tsn,!Oct.!28,!1991).!We!find!no!substantial!inconsistencies!in!Rodriguez's!testimony!that!would!impair!the!essential!integrity!of!his!testimony!or!reflect!on!his!honesty.!We!are!compelled!to!affirm!the!trial!court's!acceptance!of!the!testimony!of!said!eyewitness.!

Against!the!unassailable!testimony!of!witness!Rodriguez!we!note!that!Li's!testimony!was!peppered!with!so!many!inconsistencies!leading!us!to!conclude!that!his!version!of!the!accident!was!merely!adroitly!crafted!to!provide!a!version,!obviously!self/serving,!which!would!exculpate!him!from!any!and!all!liability!in!the!incident.!Against!Valenzuela's!corroborated!claims,!his!allegations!were!neither!backed!up!by!other!witnesses!nor!by!the!circumstances!proven!in!the!course!of!trial.!He!claimed!that!he!was!driving!merely!at!a!speed!of!55!kph.!when!"out!of!nowhere!he!saw!a!dark!maroon!lancer!right!in!front!of!him,!which!was!(the)!plaintiff's!car".!He!alleged!that!upon!seeing!this!sudden!"apparition"!he!put!on!his!brakes!to!no!avail!as!the!road!was!slippery.9!

One!will!have!to!suspend!disbelief!in!order!to!give!credence!to!Li's!disingenuous!and!patently!self/serving!asseverations.!The!average!motorist!alert+to+road+conditions+will!have!no!difficulty!applying!the!brakes!to!a!car!traveling!at!the!speed!claimed!by!Li.!Given!a!light!rainfall,!the!visibility!of!the!street,!and!the!road!conditions!on!a!principal!metropolitan!thoroughfare!like!Aurora!Boulevard,!Li!would!have!had!ample!time!to!react!to!the!changing!conditions!of!the!road!if!he!were!alert!/!as!every!driver!should!be!/!to!those!conditions.!Driving!exacts!a!more!than!usual!toll!on!the!senses.!Physiological!"fight!or!flight"!10!mechanisms!are!at!work,!provided!such!mechanisms!were!not!dulled!by!drugs,!alcohol,!exhaustion,!drowsiness,!etc.11!Li's!failure!to!react!in!a!manner!which!would!have!avoided!the!accident!could!therefore!have!been!only!due!to!either!or!both!of!the!two!factors:!1)!that!he!was!driving!at!a!"very!fast"!speed!as!testified!by!Rodriguez;!and!2)!that!he!was!under!the!influence!of!alcohol.12!Either!factor!working!independently!would!have!diminished!his!responsiveness!to!road!conditions,!since!normally!he!would!have!slowed!down!prior!to!reaching!Valenzuela's!car,!rather!than!be!in!a!situation!forcing!him!to!suddenly!apply!his!brakes.!As!the!trial!court!noted!(quoted!with!approval!by!respondent!court):!

Secondly,!as!narrated!by!defendant!Richard!Li!to!the!San!Juan!Police!immediately!after!the!incident,!he!said!that!while!driving!along!Aurora!Blvd.,!out!of!nowhere!he!saw!a!dark!maroon!lancer!right!in!front!of!him!which!was!plaintiff's!car,!indicating,!again,!thereby!that,!indeed,!he!was!driving!very!fast,!oblivious!of!his!surroundings!and!the!road!ahead!of!him,!because!if!he!was!not,!then!he!could!not!have!missed!noticing!at!a!still!far!distance!the!parked!car!of!the!plaintiff!at!the!right!side!near!the!sidewalk!which!had!its!emergency!lights!on,!thereby!avoiding!forcefully!bumping!at!the!plaintiff!who!was!then!standing!at!the!left!rear!edge!of!her!car.!

Since,!according!to!him,!in!his!narration!to!the!San!Juan!Police,!he!put!on!his!brakes!when!he!saw!the!plaintiff's!car!in!front!of!him,!but!that!it!failed!as!the!road!was!wet!and!slippery,!this!goes!to!show!again,!that,!contrary!to!his!claim,!he!was,!indeed,!running!very!fast.!For,!were!it!otherwise,!he!could!have!easily!completely!stopped!his!car,!thereby!avoiding!the!bumping!of!the!plaintiff,!notwithstanding!that!the!road!was!wet!and!slippery.!Verily,!since,!if,!indeed,!he!was!running!slow,!as!he!claimed,!at!only!about!55!kilometers!per!hour,!then,!inspite!of!the!wet!and!slippery!road,!he!could!have!avoided!hitting!the!plaintiff!by!the!mere!expedient!or!applying!his!brakes!at!the!proper!time!and!distance.!

It!could!not!be!true,!therefore,!as!he!now!claims!during!his!testimony,!which!is!contrary!to!what!he!told!the!police!immediately!after!the!accident!and!is,!therefore,!more!believable,!that!he!did!not!actually!step!on!his!brakes!but!simply!swerved!a!little!to!the!right!when!he!saw!the!on/coming!car!with!glaring!headlights,!from!the!opposite!direction,!in!order!to!avoid!it.!

For,!had!this!been!what!he!did,!he!would!not!have!bumped!the!car!of!the!plaintiff!which!was!properly!parked!at!the!right!beside!the!sidewalk.!And,!it!was!not!even!necessary!for!him!to!swerve!a!little!to!the!right!in!order!to!safely!avoid!a!collision!with!the!on/coming!car,!considering!that!Aurora!

Blvd.!is!a!double!lane!avenue!separated!at!the!center!by!a!dotted!white!paint,!and!there!is!plenty!of!space!for!both!cars,!since!her!car!was!running!at!the!right!lane!going!towards!Manila!on!the!on/coming!car!was!also!on!its!right!lane!going!to!Cubao.13!

Having!come!to!the!conclusion!that!Li!was!negligent!in!driving!his!company/issued!Mitsubishi!Lancer,!the!next!question!for!us!to!determine!is!whether!or!not!Valenzuela!was!likewise!guilty!of!contributory!negligence!in!parking!her!car!alongside!Aurora!Boulevard,!which!entire!area!Li!points!out,!is!a!no!parking!zone.!

We!agree!with!the!respondent!court!that!Valenzuela!was!not!guilty!of!contributory!negligence.!

Contributory!negligence!is!conduct!on!the!part!of!the!injured!party,!contributing!as!a!legal!cause!to!the!harm!he!has!suffered,!which!falls!below!the!standard!to!which!he!is!required!to!conform!for!his!own!protection.14!Based!on!the!foregoing!definition,!the!standard!or!act!to!which,!according!to!petitioner!Li,!Valenzuela!ought!to!have!conformed!for!her!own!protection!was!not!to!park!at!all!at!any!point!of!Aurora!Boulevard,!a!no!parking!zone.!We!cannot!agree.!

Courts!have!traditionally!been!compelled!to!recognize!that!an!actor!who!is!confronted!with!an!emergency!is!not!to!be!held!up!to!the!standard!of!conduct!normally!applied!to!an!individual!who!is!in!no!such!situation.!The!law!takes!stock!of!impulses!of!humanity!when!placed!in!threatening!or!dangerous!situations!and!does!not!require!the!same!standard!of!thoughtful!and!reflective!care!from!persons!confronted!by!unusual!and!oftentimes!threatening!conditions.15!

Under!the!"emergency!rule"!adopted!by!this!Court!in!Gan+vs.!Court+of+Appeals,16!an!individual!who!suddenly!finds!himself!in!a!situation!of!danger!and!is!required!to!act!without!much!time!to!consider!the!best!means!that!may!be!adopted!to!avoid!the!impending!danger,!is!not!guilty!of!negligence!if!he!fails!to!undertake!what!subsequently!and!upon!reflection!may!appear!to!be!a!better!solution,!unless!the!emergency!was!brought!by!his!own!negligence.17!

Applying!this!principle!to!a!case!in!which!the!victims!in!a!vehicular!accident!swerved!to!the!wrong!lane!to!avoid!hitting!two!children!suddenly!darting!into!the!street,!we!held,!in!Mc+Kee+vs.!Intermediate+Appellate+Court,18!that!the!driver!therein,!Jose!Koh,!"adopted!the!best!means!possible!in!the!given!situation"!to!avoid!hitting!the!children.!Using!the!"emergency!rule"!the!Court!concluded!that!Koh,!in!spite!of!the!fact!that!he!was!in!the!wrong!lane!when!the!collision!with!an!oncoming!truck!occurred,!was!not!guilty!of!negligence.19!

While!the!emergency!rule!applies!to!those!cases!in!which!reflective!thought,!or!the!opportunity!to!adequately!weigh!a!threatening!situation!is!absent,!the!conduct!which!is!required!of!an!individual!in!such!cases!is!dictated!not!exclusively!by!the!suddenness!of!the!event!which!absolutely!negates!thoroughful!care,!but!by!the!over/all!nature!of!the!circumstances.!A!woman!driving!a!vehicle!suddenly!crippled!by!a!flat!tire!on!a!rainy!night!will!not!be!faulted!for!stopping!at!a!point!which!is!both!convenient!for!her!to!do!so!and!which!is!not!a!hazard!to!other!motorists.!She!is!not!expected!to!run!the!entire!boulevard!in!search!for!a!parking!zone!or!turn!on!a!dark!street!or!alley!where!she!would!likely!find!no!one!to!help!her.!It!would!be!hazardous!for!her!not!to!stop!and!assess!the!emergency!(simply!because!the!entire!length!of!Aurora!Boulevard!is!a!no/parking!zone)!because!the!hobbling!vehicle!would!be!both!a!threat!to!her!safety!and!to!other!motorists.!In!the!instant!case,!Valenzuela,!upon!reaching!that!portion!of!Aurora!Boulevard!close!to!A.!Lake!St.,!noticed!that!she!had!a!flat!tire.!To!avoid!putting!herself!and!other!motorists!in!danger,!she!did!

what!was!best!under!the!situation.!As!narrated!by!respondent!court:!"She!stopped!at!a!lighted!place!where!there!were!people,!to!verify!whether!she!had!a!flat!tire!and!to!solicit!help!if!needed.!Having!been!told!by!the!people!present!that!her!rear!right!tire!was!flat!and!that!she!cannot!reach!her!home!she!parked!along!the!sidewalk,!about!1!1/2!feet!away,!behind!a!Toyota!Corona!Car."20!In!fact,!respondent!court!noted,!Pfc.!Felix!Ramos,!the!investigator!on!the!scene!of!the!accident!confirmed!that!Valenzuela's!car!was!parked!very!close!to!the!sidewalk.21!The!sketch!which!he!prepared!after!the!incident!showed!Valenzuela's!car!partly!straddling!the!sidewalk,!clear!and!at!a!convenient!distance!from!motorists!passing!the!right!lane!of!Aurora!Boulevard.!This!fact!was!itself!corroborated!by!the!testimony!of!witness!Rodriguez.22!

Under!the!circumstances!described,!Valenzuela!did!exercise!the!standard!reasonably!dictated!by!the!emergency!and!could!not!be!considered!to!have!contributed!to!the!unfortunate!circumstances!which!eventually!led!to!the!amputation!of!one!of!her!lower!extremities.!The!emergency!which!led!her!to!park!her!car!on!a!sidewalk!in!Aurora!Boulevard!was!not!of!her!own!making,!and!it!was!evident!that!she!had!taken!all!reasonable!precautions.!

Obviously!in!the!case!at!bench,!the!only!negligence!ascribable!was!the!negligence!of!Li!on!the!night!of!the!accident.!"Negligence,!as!it!is!commonly!understood!is!conduct!which!creates!an!undue!risk!of!harm!to!others."23It!is!the!failure!to!observe!that!degree!of!care,!precaution,!and!vigilance!which!the!circumstances!justly!demand,!whereby!such!other!person!suffers!injury.24!We!stressed,!in!Corliss+vs.!Manila+Railroad+Company,25!that!negligence!is!the!want!of!care!required!by!the!circumstances.!

The!circumstances!established!by!the!evidence!adduced!in!the!court!below!plainly!demonstrate!that!Li!was!grossly!negligent!in!driving!his!Mitsubishi!Lancer.!It!bears!emphasis!that!he!was!driving!at!a!fast!speed!at!about!2:00!A.M.!after!a!heavy!downpour!had!settled!into!a!drizzle!rendering!the!street!slippery.!There!is!ample!testimonial!evidence!on!record!to!show!that!he!was!under!the!influence!of!liquor.!Under!these!conditions,!his!chances!of!effectively!dealing!with!changing!conditions!on!the!road!were!significantly!lessened.!As!Presser!and!Keaton!emphasize:!

[U]nder!present!day!traffic!conditions,!any!driver!of!an!automobile!must!be!prepared!for!the!sudden!appearance!of!obstacles!and!persons!on!the!highway,!and!of!other!vehicles!at!intersections,!such!as!one!who!sees!a!child!on!the!curb!may!be!required!to!anticipate!its!sudden!dash!into!the!street,!and!his!failure!to!act!properly!when!they!appear!may!be!found!to!amount!to!negligence.26!

Li's!obvious!unpreparedness!to!cope!with!the!situation!confronting!him!on!the!night!of!the!accident!was!clearly!of!his!own!making.!

We!now!come!to!the!question!of!the!liability!of!Alexander!Commercial,!Inc.!Li's!employer.!In!denying!liability!on!the!part!of!Alexander!Commercial,!the!respondent!court!held!that:!

There!is!no!evidence,!not!even!defendant!Li's!testimony,!that!the!visit!was!in!connection!with!official!matters.!His!functions!as!assistant!manager!sometimes!required!him!to!perform!work!outside!the!office!as!he!has!to!visit!buyers!and!company!clients,!but!he!admitted!that!on!the!night!of!the!accident!he!came!from!BF!Homes!Paranaque!he!did!not!have!"business!from!the!company"!(pp.!25/26,!ten,!Sept.!23,!1991).!The!use!of!the!company!car!was!partly!required!by!the!nature!of!his!work,!but!the!privilege!of!using!it!for!non/official!business!is!a!"benefit",!apparently!referring!to!the!fringe!benefits!attaching!to!his!position.!

Under!the!civil!law,!an!employer!is!liable!for!the!negligence!of!his!employees!in!the!discharge!of!their!respective!duties,!the!basis!of!which!liability!is!not!respondeat+superior,!but!the!relationship!of+pater+familias,!which!theory!bases!the!liability!of!the!master!ultimately!on!his!own!negligence!and!not!on!that!of!his!servant!(Cuison!v.!Norton!and!Harrison!Co.,!55!Phil.!18).!Before!an!employer!may!be!held!liable!for!the!negligence!of!his!employee,!the!act!or!omission!which!caused!damage!must!have!occurred!while!an!employee!was!in!the!actual!performance!of!his!assigned!tasks!or!duties!(Francis!High!School!vs.!Court!of!Appeals,!194!SCRA!341).!In!defining!an!employer's!liability!for!the!acts!done!within!the!scope!of!the!employee's!assigned!tasks,!the!Supreme!Court!has!held!that!this!includes!any!act!done!by!an!employee,!in!furtherance!of!the!interests!of!the!employer!or!for!the!account!of!the!employer!at!the!time!of!the!infliction!of!the!injury!or!damage!(Filamer!Christian!Institute!vs.!Intermediate!Appellate!Court,!212!SCRA!637).!An!employer!is!expected!to!impose!upon!its!employees!the!necessary!discipline!called!for!in!the!performance!of!any!act!"indispensable!to!the!business!and!beneficial!to!their!employer"!(at!p.!645).!

In!light!of!the!foregoing,!We!are!unable!to!sustain!the!trial!court's!finding!that!since!defendant!Li!was!authorized!by!the!company!to!use!the!company!car!"either!officially!or!socially!or!even!bring!it!home",!he!can!be!considered!as!using!the!company!car!in!the!service!of!his!employer!or!on!the!occasion!of!his!functions.!Driving!the!company!car!was!not!among!his!functions!as!assistant!manager;!using!it!for!non/official!purposes!would!appear!to!be!a!fringe!benefit,!one!of!the!perks!attached!to!his!position.!But!to!impose!liability!upon!the!employer!under!Article!2180!of!the!Civil!Code,!earlier!quoted,!there!must!be!a!showing!that!the!damage!was!caused!by!their!employees!in!the!service!of!the!employer!or!on!the!occasion!of!their!functions.!There!is!no!evidence!that!Richard!Li!was!at!the!time!of!the!accident!performing!any!act!in!furtherance!of!the!company's!business!or!its!interests,!or!at!least!for!its!benefit.!The!imposition!of!solidary!liability!against!defendant!Alexander!Commercial!Corporation!must!therefore!fail.27!

We!agree!with!the!respondent!court!that!the!relationship!in!question!is!not!based!on!the!principle!of!respondeat+superior,!which!holds!the!master!liable!for!acts!of!the!servant,!but!that!of+pater+familias,!in!which!the!liability!ultimately!falls!upon!the!employer,!for!his!failure!to!exercise!the!diligence!of!a!good!father!of!the!family!in!the!selection!and!supervision!of!his!employees.!It!is!up!to!this!point,!however,!that!our!agreement!with!the!respondent!court!ends.!Utilizing!the!bonus+pater+familias!standard!expressed!in!Article!2180!of!the!Civil!Code,!28!we!are!of!the!opinion!that!Li's!employer,!Alexander!Commercial,!Inc.!is!jointly!and!solidarily!liable!for!the!damage!caused!by!the!accident!of!June!24,!1990.!

First,!the!case!of!St.!Francis+High+School+vs.!Court+of+Appeals29!upon!which!respondent!court!has!placed!undue!reliance,!dealt!with!the!subject!of!a!school!and!its!teacher's!supervision!of!students!during!an!extracurricular!activity.!These!cases!now!fall!under!the!provision!on!special!parental!authority!found!in!Art.!218!of!the!Family!Code!which!generally!encompasses!all!authorized!school!activities,!whether!inside!or!outside!school!premises.!

Second,!the!employer's!primary!liability!under!the!concept!of+pater+familias!embodied!by!Art!2180!(in!relation!to!Art.!2176)!of!the!Civil!Code!is!quasi/delictual!or!tortious!in!character.!His!liability!is!relieved!on!a!showing!that!he!exercised!the!diligence!of!a!good!father!of!the!family!in!the!selection!and!supervision!of!its!employees.!Once!evidence!is!introduced!showing!that!the!employer!exercised!the!required!amount!of!care!in!selecting!its!employees,!half!of!the!employer's!burden!is!overcome.!The!question!of!diligent!supervision,!however,!depends!on!the!circumstances!of!employment.!

Ordinarily,!evidence!demonstrating!that!the!employer!has!exercised!diligent!supervision!of!its!employee!during!the!performance!of!the!latter's!assigned!tasks!would!be!enough!to!relieve!him!of!the!liability!imposed!by!Article!2180!in!relation!to!Article!2176!of!the!Civil!Code.!The!employer!is!not!expected!to!exercise!supervision!over!either!the!employee's!private!activities!or!during!the!performance!of!tasks!either!unsanctioned!by!the!former!or!unrelated!to!the!employee's!tasks.!The!case!at!bench!presents!a!situation!of!a!different!character,!involving!a!practice!utilized!by!large!companies!with!either!their!employees!of!managerial!rank!or!their!representatives.!

It!is!customary!for!large!companies!to!provide!certain!classes!of!their!employees!with!courtesy!vehicles.!These!company!cars!are!either!wholly!owned!and!maintained!by!the!company!itself!or!are!subject!to!various!plans!through!which!employees!eventually!acquire!their!vehicles!after!a!given!period!of!service,!or!after!paying!a!token!amount.!Many!companies!provide!liberal!"car!plans"!to!enable!their!managerial!or!other!employees!of!rank!to!purchase!cars,!which,!given!the!cost!of!vehicles!these!days,!they!would!not!otherwise!be!able!to!purchase!on!their!own.!

Under!the!first!example,!the!company!actually!owns!and!maintains!the!car!up!to!the!point!of!turnover!of!ownership!to!the!employee;!in!the!second!example,!the!car!is!really!owned!and!maintained!by!the!employee!himself.!In!furnishing!vehicles!to!such!employees,!are!companies!totally!absolved!of!responsibility!when!an!accident!involving!a!company/issued!car!occurs!during!private!use!after!normal!office!hours?!

Most!pharmaceutical!companies,!for!instance,!which!provide!cars!under!the!first!plan,!require!rigorous!tests!of!road!worthiness!from!their!agents!prior!to!turning!over!the!car!(subject!of!company!maintenance)!to!their!representatives.!In!other!words,!like!a!good!father!of!a!family,!they!entrust!the!company!vehicle!only!after!they!are!satisfied!that!the!employee!to!whom!the!car!has!been!given!full!use!of!the!said!company!car!for!company!or!private!purposes!will!not!be!a!threat!or!menace!to!himself,!the!company!or!to!others.!When!a!company!gives!full!use!and!enjoyment!of!a!company!car!to!its!employee,!it!in!effect!guarantees!that!it!is,!like!every!good!father,!satisfied!that!its!employee!will!use!the!privilege!reasonably!and!responsively.!

In!the!ordinary!course!of!business,!not!all!company!employees!are!given!the!privilege!of!using!a!company/issued!car.!For!large!companies!other!than!those!cited!in!the!example!of!the!preceding!paragraph,!the!privilege!serves!important!business!purposes!either!related!to!the!image!of!success!an!entity!intends!to!present!to!its!clients!and!to!the!public!in!general,!or!/!for!practical!and!utilitarian!reasons!/!to!enable!its!managerial!and!other!employees!of!rank!or!its!sales!agents!to!reach!clients!conveniently.!In!most!cases,!providing!a!company!car!serves!both!purposes.!Since!important!business!transactions!and!decisions!may!occur!at!all!hours!in!all!sorts!of!situations!and!under!all!kinds!of!guises,!the!provision!for!the!unlimited!use!of!a!company!car!therefore!principally+serves!the!business!and!goodwill!of!a!company!and!only+incidentally!the!private!purposes!of!the!individual!who!actually!uses!the!car,!the!managerial!employee!or!company!sales!agent.!As!such,!in!providing!for!a!company!car!for!business!use!and/or!for!the!purpose!of!furthering!the!company's!image,!a!company!owes!a!responsibility!to!the!public!to!see!to!it!that!the!managerial!or!other!employees!to!whom!it!entrusts!virtually!unlimited!use!of!a!company!issued!car!are!able!to!use!the!company!issue!capably!and!responsibly.!

In!the!instant!case,!Li!was!an!Assistant!Manager!of!Alexander!Commercial,!Inc.!In!his!testimony!before!the!trial!court,!he!admitted!that!his!functions!as!Assistant!Manager!did!not!require!him!to!scrupulously!keep!normal!office!hours!as!he!was!required!quite!often!to!perform!work!outside!the!office,!visiting!prospective!buyers!and!contacting!and!meeting!with!company!clients.!30!These!meetings,!clearly,!were!not!strictly!confined!to!routine!hours!because,!as!a!managerial!employee!tasked!with!the!job!of!representing!his!company!with!its!clients,!meetings!with!clients!were!both!social!as!well!as!work/related!functions.!The!service!car!assigned!to!Li!by!Alexander!Commercial,!Inc.!therefore!enabled!both!Li!/!as!well!as!the!

corporation!/!to!put!up!the!front!of!a!highly!successful!entity,!increasing!the!latter's!goodwill!before!its!clientele.!It!also!facilitated!meeting!between!Li!and!its!clients!by!providing!the!former!with!a!convenient!mode!of!travel.!

Moreover,!Li's!claim!that!he!happened!to!be!on!the!road!on!the!night!of!the!accident!because!he!was!coming!from!a!social!visit!with!an!officemate!in!Paranaque!was!a!bare!allegation!which!was!never!corroborated!in!the!court!below.!It!was!obviously!self/serving.!Assuming!he!really!came!from!his!officemate's!place,!the!same!could!give!rise!to!speculation!that!he!and!his!officemate!had!just!been!from!a!work/related!function,!or!they!were!together!to!discuss!sales!and!other!work!related!strategies.!

In!fine,!Alexander!Commercial,!inc.!has!not!demonstrated,!to!our!satisfaction,!that!it!exercised!the!care!and!diligence!of!a!good!father!of!the!family!in!entrusting!its!company!car!to!Li.!No!allegations!were!made!as!to!whether!or!not!the!company!took!the!steps!necessary!to!determine!or!ascertain!the!driving!proficiency!and!history!of!Li,!to!whom!it!gave!full!and!unlimited!use!of!a!company!car.31!Not!having!been!able!to!overcome!the!burden!of!demonstrating!that!it!should!be!absolved!of!liability!for!entrusting!its!company!car!to!Li,!said!company,!based!on!the!principle!of!bonus+pater+familias,!ought!to!be!jointly!and!severally!liable!with!the!former!for!the!injuries!sustained!by!Ma.!Lourdes!Valenzuela!during!the!accident.!

Finally,!we!find!no!reason!to!overturn!the!amount!of!damages!awarded!by!the!respondent!court,!except!as!to!the!amount!of!moral!damages.!In!the!case!of!moral!damages,!while!the!said!damages!are!not!intended!to!enrich!the!plaintiff!at!the!expense!of!a!defendant,!the!award!should!nonetheless!be!commensurate!to!the!suffering!inflicted.!In!the!instant!case!we!are!of!the!opinion!that!the!reduction!in!moral!damages!from!an!amount!of!P1,000,000.00!to!P800,000,00!by!the!Court!of!Appeals!was!not!justified!considering!the!nature!of!the!resulting!damage!and!the!predictable!sequelae!of!the!injury.!

As!a!result!of!the!accident,!Ma.!Lourdes!Valenzuela!underwent!a!traumatic!amputation!of!her!left!lower!extremity!at!the!distal!left!thigh!just!above!the!knee.!Because!of!this,!Valenzuela!will!forever!be!deprived!of!the!full!ambulatory!functions!of!her!left!extremity,!even!with!the!use!of!state!of!the!art!prosthetic!technology.!Well!beyond!the!period!of!hospitalization!(which!was!paid!for!by!Li),!she!will!be!required!to!undergo!adjustments!in!her!prosthetic!devise!due!to!the!shrinkage!of!the!stump!from!the!process!of!healing.!

These!adjustments!entail!costs,!prosthetic!replacements!and!months!of!physical!and!occupational!rehabilitation!and!therapy.!During!her!lifetime,!the!prosthetic!devise!will!have!to!be!replaced!and!re/adjusted!to!changes!in!the!size!of!her!lower!limb!effected!by!the!biological!changes!of!middle/age,!menopause!and!aging.!Assuming!she!reaches!menopause,!for!example,!the!prosthetic!will!have!to!be!adjusted!to!respond!to!the!changes!in!bone!resulting!from!a!precipitate!decrease!in!calcium!levels!observed!in!the!bones!of!all!post/menopausal!women.!In!other!words,!the!damage!done!to!her!would!not!only!be!permanent!and!lasting,!it!would!also!be!permanently!changing!and!adjusting!to!the!physiologic!changes!which!her!body!would!normally!undergo!through!the!years.!The!replacements,!changes,!and!adjustments!will!require!corresponding!adjustive!physical!and!occupational!therapy.!All!of!these!adjustments,!it!has!been!documented,!are!painful.!

The!foregoing!discussion!does!not!even!scratch!the!surface!of!the!nature!of!the!resulting!damage!because!it!would!be!highly!speculative!to!estimate!the!amount!of!psychological!pain,!damage!and!injury!which!goes!with!the!sudden!severing!of!a!vital!portion!of!the!human!body.!A!prosthetic!device,!however!technologically!advanced,!will!only!allow!a!reasonable!amount!of!functional!restoration!of!the!motor!functions!of!the!

lower!limb.!The!sensory!functions!are!forever!lost.!The!resultant!anxiety,!sleeplessness,!psychological!injury,!mental!and!physical!pain!are!inestimable.!

As!the!amount!of!moral!damages!are!subject!to!this!Court's!discretion,!we!are!of!the!opinion!that!the!amount!of!P1,000,000.00!granted!by!the!trial!court!is!in!greater!accord!with!the!extent!and!nature!of!the!injury!/!physical!and!psychological!/!suffered!by!Valenzuela!as!a!result!of!Li's!grossly!negligent!driving!of!his!Mitsubishi!Lancer!in!the!early!morning!hours!of!the!accident.!

WHEREFORE,!PREMISES!CONSIDERED,!the!decision!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!is!modified!with!the!effect!of!REINSTATING!the!judgment!of!the!Regional!Trial!Court.!

SO!ORDERED!

$ $

G.R.$No.$156034$$$$$$$$$$$$$October$1,$2003!

DELSAN$TRANSPORT$LINES,$INC.,!petitioner,!!vs.!C$&$A$construction,$inc.,!respondent.!

D!E!C!I!S!I!O!N!

YNARESRSANTIAGO,$J.:!

Assailed!in!this!petition!for!review!under!Rule!45!of!the!Revised!Rules!of!Court!are!the!June!14,!2002!decision1!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!in!CA/G.R.!CV!No.!59034,!which!reversed!the!decision2!of!the!Regional!Trial!Court!of!Manila,!Branch!46,!in!Civil!Case!No.!95/75565,!and!its!November!7,!2002!resolution3!denying!petitioners!motion!for!reconsideration.!

The!undisputed!facts!reveal!that!respondent!C!&!A!Construction,!Inc.!was!engaged!by!the!National!Housing!Authority!(NHA)!to!construct!a!deflector!wall!at!the!Vitas!Reclamation!Area!in!Vitas,!Tondo,!Manila.4!The!project!was!completed!in!1994!but!it!was!not!formally!turned!over!to!NHA.!

On!October!9,!1994,!M/V!Delsan!Express,!a!ship!owned!and!operated!by!petitioner!Delsan!Transport!Lines,!Inc.,!anchored!at!the!Navotas!Fish!Port!for!the!purpose!of!installing!a!cargo!pump!and!clearing!the!cargo!oil!tank.!At!around!12:00!midnight!of!October!20,!1994,!Captain!Demetrio!T.!Jusep!of!M/V!Delsan!Express!received!a!report!from!his!radio!head!operator!in!Japan5!that!a!typhoon!was!going!to!hit!Manila6!in!about!eight!(8)!hours.7!At!approximately!8:35!in!the!morning!of!October!21,!1994,!Capt.!Jusep!tried!to!seek!shelter!at!the!North!Harbor!but!could!not!enter!the!area!because!it!was!already!congested.8!At!10:00!a.m.,!Capt.!Jusep!decided!to!drop!anchor!at!the!vicinity!of!Vitas!mouth,!4!miles!away!from!a!Napocor!power!barge.!At!that!time,!the!waves!were!already!reaching!8!to!10!feet!high.!Capt.!Jusep!ordered!his!crew!to!go!full!ahead!to!counter!the!wind!which!was!dragging!the!ship!towards!the!Napocor!power!barge.!To!avoid!collision,!Capt.!Jusep!ordered!a!full!stop!of!the!vessel.9!He!succeeded!in!avoiding!the!power!barge,!but!when!the!engine!was!re/started!and!the!ship!was!maneuvered!full!astern,!it!hit!the!deflector!wall!constructed!by!respondent.10!The!damage!caused!by!the!incident!amounted!to!P456,198.24.11!

Respondent!demanded!payment!of!the!damage!from!petitioner!but!the!latter!refused!to!pay.!Consequently,!respondent!filed!a!complaint!for!damages!with!the!Regional!Trial!Court!of!Manila,!Branch!46,!which!was!docketed!as!Civil!Case!No.!95/75565.!In!its!answer,!petitioner!claimed!that!the!damage!was!caused!by!a!fortuitous!event.12!

On!February!13,!1998,!the!complaint!filed!by!respondent!was!dismissed.!The!trial!court!ruled!that!petitioner!was!not!guilty!of!negligence!because!it!had!taken!all!the!necessary!precautions!to!avoid!the!accident.!Applying!the!"emergency!rule",!it!absolved!petitioner!of!liability!because!the!latter!had!no!opportunity!to!adequately!weigh!the!best!solution!to!a!threatening!situation.!It!further!held!that!even!if!the!maneuver!chosen!by!petitioner!was!a!wrong!move,!it!cannot!be!held!liable!as!the!cause!of!the!damage!sustained!by!respondent!was!typhoon!"Katring",!which!is!an!act!of!God.13!

On!appeal!to!the!Court!of!Appeals,!the!decision!of!the!trial!court!was!reversed!and!set!aside.14!It!found!Capt.!Jusep!guilty!of!negligence!in!deciding!to!transfer!the!vessel!to!the!North!Harbor!only!at!8:35!a.m.!of!October!21,!1994!and!thus!held!petitioner!liable!for!damages.!

Hence,!petitioner!filed!the!instant!petition!contending!that!Capt.!Jusep!was!not!negligent!in!waiting!until!8:35!in!the!morning!of!October!21,!1994!before!transferring!the!vessel!to!the!North!Harbor!inasmuch!as!it!was!not!shown!that!had!the!transfer!been!made!earlier,!the!vessel!could!have!sought!shelter.15!It!further!claimed!that!it!cannot!be!held!vicariously!liable!under!Article!2180!of!the!Civil!Code!because!respondent!failed!to!allege!in!the!complaint!that!petitioner!was!negligent!in!the!selection!and!supervision!of!its!employees.16!Granting!that!Capt.!Jusep!was!indeed!guilty!of!negligence,!petitioner!is!not!liable!because!it!exercised!due!diligence!in!the!selection!of!Capt.!Jusep!who!is!a!duly!licensed!and!competent!Master!Mariner.17!

The!issues!to!be!resolved!in!this!petition!are!as!follows!!(1)!Whether!or!not!Capt.!Jusep!was!negligent;!(2)!If!yes,!whether!or!not!petitioner!is!solidarily!liable!under!Article!2180!of!the!Civil!Code!for!the!quasiAdelict!committed!by!Capt.!Jusep?!

Article!2176!of!the!Civil!Code!provides!that!whoever!by!act!or!omission!causes!damage!to!another,!there!being!fault!or!negligence,!is!obliged!to!pay!for!the!damage!done.!Such!fault!or!negligence,!if!there!is!no!pre/existing!contractual!relation!between!the!parties,!is!called!a!quasiAdelict.!The!test!for!determining!the!existence!of!negligence!in!a!particular!case!may!be!stated!as!follows:!Did!the!defendant!in!doing!the!alleged!negligent!act!use!the!reasonable!care!and!caution!which!an!ordinary!prudent!person!would!have!used!in!the!same!situation?!If!not,!then!he!is!guilty!of!negligence.18!

In!the!case!at!bar,!the!Court!of!Appeals!was!correct!in!holding!that!Capt.!Jusep!was!negligent!in!deciding!to!transfer!the!vessel!only!at!8:35!in!the!morning!of!October!21,!1994.!As!early!as!12:00!midnight!of!October!20,!1994,!he!received!a!report!from!his!radio!head!operator!in!Japan19!that!a!typhoon!was!going!to!hit!Manila20!after!8!hours.21!This,!notwithstanding,!he!did!nothing,!until!8:35!in!the!morning!of!October!21,!1994,!when!he!decided!to!seek!shelter!at!the!North!Harbor,!which!unfortunately!was!already!congested.!The!finding!of!negligence!cannot!be!rebutted!upon!proof!that!the!ship!could!not!have!sought!refuge!at!the!North!Harbor!even!if!the!transfer!was!done!earlier.!It!is!not!the!speculative!success!or!failure!of!a!decision!that!determines!the!existence!of!negligence!in!the!present!case,!but!the!failure!to!take!immediate!and!appropriate!action!under!the!circumstances.!Capt.!Jusep,!despite!knowledge!that!the!typhoon!was!to!hit!Manila!in!8!hours,!complacently!waited!for!the!lapse!of!more!than!8!hours!thinking!that!the!typhoon!might!change!direction.22!He!cannot!claim!that!he!waited!for!the!sun!to!rise!instead!of!moving!the!vessel!at!midnight!immediately!after!receiving!the!report!because!of!the!difficulty!of!traveling!at!night.!The!hour!of!8:35!a.m.!is!way!past!sunrise.!Furthermore,!he!did!not!transfer!as!soon!as!the!sun!rose!because,!according!to!him,!it!was!not!very!cloudy23!and!there!was!no!weather!disturbance!yet.24!

When!he!ignored!the!weather!report!notwithstanding!reasonable!foresight!of!harm,!Capt.!Jusep!showed!an!inexcusable!lack!of!care!and!caution!which!an!ordinary!prudent!person!would!have!observed!in!the!same!situation.25!Had!he!moved!the!vessel!earlier,!he!could!have!had!greater!chances!of!finding!a!space!at!the!North!Harbor!considering!that!the!Navotas!Port!where!they!docked!was!very!near!North!Harbor.26!Even!if!the!latter!was!already!congested,!he!would!still!have!time!to!seek!refuge!in!other!ports.!

The!trial!court!erred!in!applying!the!emergency!rule.!Under!this!rule,!one!who!suddenly!finds!himself!in!a!place!of!danger,!and!is!required!to!act!without!time!to!consider!the!best!means!that!may!be!adopted!to!avoid!the!impending!danger,!is!not!guilty!of!negligence,!if!he!fails!to!adopt!what!

subsequently!and!upon!reflection!may!appear!to!have!been!a!better!method,!unless!the!danger!in!which!he!finds!himself!is!brought!about!by!his!own!negligence.27!Clearly,!the!emergency!rule!is!not!applicable!to!the!instant!case!because!the!danger!where!Capt.!Jusep!found!himself!was!caused!by!his!own!negligence.!

Anent!the!second!issue,!we!find!petitioner!vicariously!liable!for!the!negligent!act!of!Capt.!Jusep.1awphi1.nt!Under!Article!2180!of!the!Civil!Code!an!employer!may!be!held!solidarily!liable!for!the!negligent!act!of!his!employee.!Thus!!

Art.!2180.!The!obligation!imposed!in!Article!2176!is!demandable!not!only!for!ones!own!acts!or!omissions,!but!also!for!those!of!persons!for!whom!one!is!responsible.!

x!x!x!x!x!x!x!x!x!

Employers!shall!be!liable!for!the!damages!caused!by!their!employees!and!household!helpers!acting!within!the!scope!of!their!assigned!tasks,!even!though!the!former!are!not!engaged!in!any!business!or!industry.!

x!x!x!x!x!x!x!x!x!

The!responsibility!treated!of!in!this!article!shall!cease!when!the!persons!herein!mentioned!prove!that!they!observed!all!the!diligence!of!a!good!father!of!a!family!to!prevent!damage.!

Whenever!an!employees!negligence!causes!damage!or!injury!to!another,!there!instantly!arises!a!presumptionjuris+tantum!that!the!employer!failed!to!exercise!diligentissimi+patris+families!in!the!selection!(culpa+in+eligiendo)!or!supervision!(culpa+in+vigilando)!of!its!employees.!To!avoid!liability!for!a!quasiAdelict!committed!by!his!employee,!an!employer!must!overcome!the!presumption!by!presenting!convincing!proof!that!he!exercised!the!care!and!diligence!of!a!good!father!of!a!family!in!the!selection!and!supervision!of!his!employee.!28!

There!is!no!question!that!petitioner,!who!is!the!owner/operator!of!M/V!Delsan!Express,!is!also!the!employer!of!Capt.!Jusep!who!at!the!time!of!the!incident!acted!within!the!scope!of!his!duty.!The!defense!raised!by!petitioner!was!that!it!exercised!due!diligence!in!the!selection!of!Capt.!Jusep!because!the!latter!is!a!licensed!and!competent!Master!Mariner.!It!should!be!stressed,!however,!that!the!required!diligence!of!a!good!father!of!a!family!pertains!not!only!to!the!selection,!but!also!to!the!supervision!of!employees.!It!is!not!enough!that!the!employees!chosen!be!competent!and!qualified,!inasmuch!as!the!employer!is!still!required!to!exercise!due!diligence!in!supervising!its!employees.!

In!Fabre,+Jr.+v.+Court+of+Appeals,29!it!was!held!that!due!diligence!in!supervision!requires!the!formulation!of!rules!and!regulations!for!the!guidance!of!employees!and!the!issuance!of!proper!instructions!as!well!as!actual!implementation!and!monitoring!of!consistent!compliance!with!the!rules.!Corollarily,!in!Ramos+v.+Court+of+Appeals,30!the!Court!stressed!that!once!negligence!on!the!part!of!the!employees!is!shown,!the!burden!of!proving!that!he!observed!the!diligence!in!the!selection!and!supervision!of!its!employees!shifts!to!the!employer.!

In!the!case!at!bar,!however,!petitioner!presented!no!evidence!that!it!formulated!rules/guidelines!for!the!proper!performance!of!functions!of!its!employees!and!that!it!strictly!implemented!and!monitored!compliance!therewith.!Failing!to!discharge!the!burden,!petitioner!should!therefore!be!held!liable!for!the!negligent!act!of!Capt.!Jusep.!

So!also,!petitioner!cannot!disclaim!liability!on!the!basis!of!respondents!failure!to!allege!in!its!complaint!that!the!former!did!not!exercise!due!diligence!in!the!selection!and!supervision!of!its!employees.!In!Viron+Transportation+Co.,+Inc.+v.+Delos+Santos,31!it!was!held!that!it!is!not!necessary!to!state!that!petitioner!was!negligent!in!the!supervision!or!selection!of!its!employees,!inasmuch!as!its!negligence!is!presumed!by!operation!of!law.!Allegations!of!negligence!against!the!employee!and!that!of!an!employer/employee!relation!in!the!complaint!are!enough!to!make!out!a!case!of!quasiAdelict!under!Article!2180!of!the!Civil!Code.32!

Considering!that!petitioner!did!not!assail!the!damages!awarded!by!the!trial!court,!we!find!no!reason!to!alter!the!same.!The!interest!imposed!should,!however,!be!modified.!In!Eastern+Shipping+Lines,+Inc.+v.+Court+of+Appeals,33it!was!held!that!the!rate!of!interest!on!obligations!not!constituting!a!loan!or!forbearance!of!money!is!six!percent!(6%)!per!annum.!If!the!purchase!price!can!be!established!with!certainty!at!the!time!of!the!filing!of!the!complaint,!the!six!percent!(6%)!interest!should!be!computed!from!the!date!the!complaint!was!filed!until!finality!of!the!decision.!After!the!judgment!becomes!final!and!executory!until!the!obligation!is!satisfied,!the!amount!due!shall!earn!interest!at!12%!per!year,!the!interim!period!being!deemed!equivalent!to!a!forbearance!of!credit.34!

Accordingly,!the!amount!of!P456,198.27!due!the!respondent!shall!earn!6%!interest!per!annum!from!October!3,!1995!until!the!finality!of!this!decision.!If!the!adjudged!principal!and!the!interest!(or!any!part!thereof)!remain!unpaid!thereafter,!the!interest!rate!shall!be!twelve!percent!(12%)!per!annum!computed!from!the!time!the!judgment!becomes!final!and!executory!until!it!is!fully!satisfied.!

WHEREFORE,!in!view!of!all!the!foregoing,!the!instant!petition!is!DENIED.1awphi1.nt!The!June!14,!2002!decision!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!in!CA/G.R.!CV!No.!59034!ordering!petitioner!Delsan!Transport!Lines,!Inc.,!to!pay!respondent!C!&!A!Construction,!Inc.,!damages!in!the!amount!of!P456,198.27,!plus!P30,000.00!as!attorneys!fees,!is!AFFIRMED!with!the!MODIFICATION!that!the!award!of!P456,198.27!shall!earn!interest!at!the!rate!of!6%!per!annum!from!October!3,!1995,!until!finality!of!this!decision,!and!12%!per!annum!thereafter!on!the!principal!and!interest!(or!any!part!thereof)!until!full!payment.!

SO!ORDERED.!

! !

G.R.$No.$LR5691$December$27,$1910$

S.$D.$MARTINEZ$and$his$wife,$CARMEN$ONG$DE$MARTINEZ,!plaintiffs/appellees,!!vs.!WILLIAM$VAN$BUSKIRK,!defendant/appellant.!

Lionel+D.+Hargis+for+appellant.+Sanz+and+Oppisso+for+appellee.!

!!

MORELAND,$J.:!

The!facts!found!by!the!trial!court!are!undisputed!by!either!party!in!this!case.!They!are!!

That!on!the!11th!day!of!September,!1908,!the!plaintiff,!Carmen!Ong!de!Martinez,!was!riding!in!a!carromata!on!Calle!Real,!district!of!Ermita,!city!of!Manila,!P.I.,!along!the!left/hand!side!of!the!street!as!she!was!going,!when!a!delivery!wagon!belonging!to!the!defendant!used!for!the!purpose!of!transportation!of!fodder!by!the!defendant,!and!to!which!was!attached!a!pair!of!horses,!came!along!the!street!in!the!opposite!direction!to!that!the!in!which!said!plaintiff!was!proceeding,!and!that!thereupon!the!driver!of!the!said!plaintiff's!carromata,!observing!that!the!delivery!wagon!of!the!defendant!was!coming!at!great!speed,!crowded!close!to!the!sidewalk!on!the!left/hand!side!of!the!street!and!stopped,!in!order!to!give!defendant's!delivery!wagon!an!opportunity!to!pass!by,!but!that!instead!of!passing!by!the!defendant's!wagon!and!horses!ran!into!the!carromata!occupied!by!said!plaintiff!with!her!child!and!overturned!it,!severely!wounding!said!plaintiff!by!making!a!serious!cut!upon!her!head,!and!also!injuring!the!carromata!itself!and!the!harness!upon!the!horse!which!was!drawing!it.!

x!x!x!!!!!!!!!!!x!x!x!!!!!!!!!!x!x!x!

These!facts!are!not!dispute,!but!the!defendant!presented!evidence!to!the!effect!that!the!cochero,!who!was!driving!his!delivery!wagon!at!the!time!the!accident!occurred,!was!a!good!servant!and!was!considered!a!safe!and!reliable!cochero;!that!the!delivery!wagon!had!sent!to!deliver!some!forage!at!Paco!Livery!Stable!on!Calle!Herran,!and!that!for!the!purpose!of!delivery!thereof!the!cochero!driving!the!team!as!defendant's!employee!tied!the!driving!lines!of!the!horses!to!the!front!end!of!the!delivery!wagon!and!then!went!back!inside!of!the!wagon!for!the!purpose!of!unloading!the!forage!to!be!delivered;!that!while!unloading!the!forage!and!in!the!act!of!carrying!some!of!it!out,!another!vehicle!drove!by,!the!driver!of!which!cracked!a!whip!and!made!some!other!noises,!which!frightened!the!horses!attached!to!the!delivery!wagon!and!they!ran!away,!and!the!driver!was!thrown!from!the!inside!of!the!wagon!out!through!the!rear!upon!the!ground!and!was!unable!to!stop!the!horses;!that!the!horses!then!ran!up!and!on!which!street!they!came!into!collision!with!the!carromata!in!which!the!plaintiff,!Carmen!Ong!de!Martinez,!was!riding.!

The!defendant!himself!was!not!with!the!vehicle!on!the!day!in!question.!

Upon!these!facts!the!court!below!found!the!defendant!guilty!of!negligence!and!gave!judgment!against!him!for!P442.50,!with!interest!thereon!at!the!rate!of!6!per!cent!per!annum!from!the!17th!day!of!October,!1908,!and!for!the!costs!of!the!action.!The!case!is!before!us!on!an!appeal!from!that!judgment.!

There!is!no!general!law!of!negligence!in!the!Philippine!Islands!except!that!embodied!in!the!Civil!Code.!The!provisions!of!that!code!pertinent!to!this!case!are!!

Art.!1902.!A!person!who!by!an!act!or!omission!causes!damage!to!another!when!there!is!fault!or!negligence!shall!be!obliged!to!repair!the!damage!so!done.!

Art.!1903.!The!obligation!imposed!by!preceding!article!is!demandable,!not!only!for!personal!acts!and!omissions,!but!also!for!those!of!the!persons!for!whom!they!should!be!responsible.!

The!father,!and!on!his!death!or!incapacity!the!mother,!is!liable!for!the!damages!caused!by!the!minors!who!live!with!them.!

Guardians!are!liable!for!the!damages!caused!by!minors!or!incapacitated!persons!who!are!under!their!authority!and!live!with!them.!

Owners!of!directors!of!an!establishment!or!enterprise!are!equally!liable!for!the!damages!caused!by!the!employees!in!the!service!of!the!branches!in!which!the!latter!may!be!employed!or!on!account!of!their!duties.!

The!State!is!liable!in!this!sense!when!it!acts!through!a!special!agent,!but!not!when!the!damages!should!have!been!caused!by!the!official!to!whom!properly!it!pertained!to!do!the!act!performed,!in!which!case!the!provisions!of!the!preceding!article!shall!be!applicable.!

Finally,!masters!or!directors!of!arts!and!trades!are!liable!for!the!damages!caused!by!their!pupils!or!apprentices!while!they!are!under!their!custody.!

The!liability!referred!to!in!this!article!shall!cease!when!the!persons!mentioned!therein!prove!that!they!employed!all!the!diligence!of!a!good!father!of!a!family!to!avoid!the!damage.!

Passing!the!question!whether!or!not!an!employer!who!has!furnished!a!gentle!and!tractable!team!and!a!trusty!and!capable!driver!is,!under!the!last!paragraph!of!the!above!provisions,!liable!for!the!negligence!of!such!driver!in!handling!the!team,!we!are!of!the!opinion!that!the!judgment!must!be!reversed!upon!the!ground!that!the!evidence!does!not!disclose!that!the!cochero!was!negligent.!

While!the!law!relating!to!negligence!in!this!jurisdiction!may!possibly!be!some!what!different!from!that!in!Anglo/Saxon!countries,!a!question!we!do!not!now!discuss,!the!rules!under!which!the!fact!of!negligence!is!determined!are,!nevertheless,!generally!the!same.!That!is!to!say,!while!the!law!designating!the+person+responsible!for!a!negligent!act!may!not!be!the!same!here!as!in!many!jurisdictions,!the!law!determining!what!is+a!negligent+act!is!the!same!here,!generally!speaking,!as!elsewhere.!(Supreme!court!of!Spain,!4!December,!1903;!16!May,!1893;!27!June,!

1894;!9!April,!1896;!14!March,!1901;!2!March,!1904;!7!February,!1905;!16!June,!1905;!23!June,!1905;!13!April,!1903;!7!March,!1902;!12!June,!1900;!2!March,!1907;!18!March,!1898;!3!June,!1901.)!

It!appears!from!the!undisputed!evidence!that!the!horses!which!caused!the!damage!were!gentle!and!tractable;!that!the!cochero!was!experienced!and!capable;!that!he!had!driven!one!of!the!horses!several!years!and!the!other!five!or!six!months;!that!he!had!been!in!the!habit,!during!all!that!time,!of!leaving!them!in!the!condition!in!which!they!were!left!on!the!day!of!the!accident;!that!they!had!never!run!away!up!to!that!time!and!there!had!been,!therefore,!no!accident!due!to!such!practice;!that!to!leave!the!horses!and!assist!in!unloading!the!merchandise!in!the!manner!described!on!the!day!of!the!accident!was!the!custom!of!all!cochero!who!delivered!merchandise!of!the!character!of!that!which!was!being!delivered!by!the!cochero!of!the!defendant!on!the!day!in!question,!which!custom!was!sanctioned!by!their!employers.!

In!our!judgment,!the!cochero!of!the!defendant!was!not!negligent!in!leaving!the!horses!in!the!manner!described!by!the!evidence!in!this!case,!either!under!Spanish!or!American!jurisprudence.!(Lynch!vs.!Nurdin,!1!Q.!B.,!422;!Rumsey!vs.!Nelson,!58!Vt.,!590;!Drake!vs.!Mount,!33!N.!J.!L.,!442;!Hoboken!Land!and!Improvement!Co.!vs.!Lally,!48!N.!J.!L.,!604;!Wasmer!vs.!D.!L.!&!W.!R.!R.!Co.,!80!N.!Y.,!212.)!lawphi1.net!

In!the!case!of!Hayman+vs.+Hewitt!(Peake!N.!P.!Cas.,!pt.!2,!p.!170),!Lord!Kenyon!said:!

He!was!performing!his!duty!while!removing!the!goods!into!the!house,!and,!if!every!person!who!suffered!a!cart!to!remain!in!the!street!while!he!took!goods!out!of!it!was!obliged!to!employ!another!to!look!after!the!horses,!it!would!be!impossible!for!the!business!of!the!metropolis!to!go!on.!

In!the!case!of!Griggs+vs.+Fleckenstein+(14!Minn.,!81),!the!court!said:!

The!degree!of!care!required!of!the!plaintiff,!or!those!in!charged!of!his!horse,!at!the!time!of!the!injury,!is!that!which!would!be!exercised!by!a!person!of!ordinary!care!and!prudence!under!like!circumstances.!It!can!not!be!said!that!the!fact!of!leaving!the!horse!unhitched!is!in!itself!negligence.!Whether!it!is!negligence!to!leave!a!horse!unhitched!must!be!depend!upon!the!disposition!of!the!horse;!whether!he!was!under!the!observation!and!control!of!some!person!all!the!time,!and!many!other!circumstances;!and!is!a!question!to!be!determined!by!the!jury!from!the!facts!of!each!case.!

In!the!case!of!Belles+vs.+Kellner+(67!N.!J.!L.,!255),!it!was!held!that!it!was!error!on!the!part!of!the!trial!court!to!refuse!to!charge!that!"it!is!not!negligence!for!the!driver!of!a!quite,!gentle!horse!to!leave!him!unhitched!and!otherwise!unattended!on!the!side!of!a!public!highways!while!the!driver!is!upon!the!sidewalk!loading!goods!on!the!wagon."!The!said!court!closed!its!opinion!with!these!words:!

There!was!evidence!which!could!have!fully!justified!the!jury!in!finding!that!the!horse!was!quite!and!gentle,!and!that!the!driver!was!upon!the!sidewalk!loading!goods!on!the!wagon,!at!time!of!the!alleged!injury,!and!that!the!horse!had!been!used!for!years!in!that!way!without!accident.!The!refusal!of!the!trial!court!to!charge!as!requested!left!the!jury!free!to!find!was!verdict!against!the!defendant,!although!the!jury!was!convinced!that!these!facts!were!proven.lawphil.net!

In!the!case!of!Southworth+vs.+Ry.+Co.+(105!Mass.,!342),!it!was!held:!

That!evidence!that!a!servant,!whom!traders!employed!to!deliver!goods,!upon!stopping!with!his!horse!and!wagon!to!deliver!a!parcel!at!a!house!from!fifty!to!a!hundred!rods!from!a!railroad!crossing,!left!the!horse!unfastened!for!four!or!five!minutes!while!he!was!in!the!house,!knowing!that!it!was!not!afraid!of!cars,!and!having!used!it!for!three!or!four!months!without!ever!hitching!it!or!knowing!it!to!start,!is!not!conclusive,!as!a!matter!of!law,!of!a!want!of!due!care!on!his!part.!

The!duty,!a!violation!of!which!is!claimed!to!be!negligence!in!the!respect!in!question,!is!to!exercise!reasonable!care!and!prudence.!Where!reasonable!care!is!employed!in!doing!an!act!not!itself!illegal!or!inherently!likely!to!produce!damage!to!others,!there!will!be!no!liability,!although!damage!in!fact!ensues.!(Milwaukee!Ry.!Co.!vs.Arms,!91!U.!S.,!489;!Parrott!vs.!Wells,!15!Wall.,!524;!Brown!vs.!Kendall,!6!Cushing,!292;!Jackson!Architectural!Iron!Works!vs.!Hurlbut,!158!N.!Y.,!34!Westerfield!vs.!Levis,!43!La.!An.,!63;!Niosi!vs.!Empire!Steam!Laundry,!117!Cal.,!257.)!

The!act!of!defendant's!driver!in!leaving!the!horses!in!the!manner!proved!was!not!unreasonable!or!imprudent.!Acts!the!performance!of!which!has!not!proved!destructive!or!injurious!and!which!have,!therefore,!been!acquiesced!in!by!society!for!so!long!a!time!that!they!have!ripened!into!custom,!can!not!be!held!to!be!themselves!unreasonable!or!imprudent.!Indeed!the!very!reason!why!they!have!been!permitted!by!society!is!that!they!beneficial!rather!than!prejudicial.itcAalf!Accidents!sometimes!happen!and!injuries!result!from!the!most!ordinary!acts!of!life.!But!such!are!not!their!natural!or!customary!results.!To!hold!that,!because!such!an!act!once!resulted!in!accident!or!injury,!the!actor!is!necessarily!negligent,!is!to!go!far.!The!fact!that!the!doctrine!of!res+ipsa+loquitur+is!sometimes!successfully!invoked!in!such!a!case,!does!not!in!any!sense!militate!against!the!reasoning!presented.!That!maxim!at!most!only!creates!a+prima+facie+case,!and!that!only!in!the!absence!of!proof!of!the!circumstances!under!which!the!act!complained!of!was!performed.!It!is!something!invoked!in!favor!of!the!plaintiff!before!defendant's!case!showing!the!conditions!and!circumstances!under!which!the!injury!occurred,!the!creative!reason!for!the!doctrine!of!res+ipsa+loquitur+disappears.!This!is!demonstrated!by!the!case!of!Inland+and+Seaboard+Costing+Co.+vs.+Tolson+(139!U.S.,!551),!where!the!court!said!(p.!554):!

.!.!.!The!whole!effect!of!the!instruction!in!question,!as!applied!to!the!case!before!the!jury,!was!that!if!the!steamboat,!on!a!calm!day!and!in!smooth!water,!was!thrown!with!such!force!against!a!wharf!properly!built,!as!to!tear!up!some!of!the!planks!of!the!flooring,!this!would!be+prima+facie+evidence!of!negligence!on!the!part!of!the!defendant's!agent!in!making!the!landing,!unless!upon!the!whole!evidence!in!the!case!this+prima+facie+evidence!was!rebutted.!As!such!damage!to!a!wharf!is!not!ordinarily!done!by!a!steamboat!under!control!of!her!officers!and!carefully!managed!by!them,!evidence!that!such!damage!was!done!in!this!case!was+prima+facie,+and,!if!unexplained,!sufficient!evidence!of!negligence!on!their!part,!and!the!jury!might!properly!be!so!instructed.!

There!was!presented!in!this!case,!and!by!the!plaintiffs!themselves,!not!only!the!fact!of!the!runway!and!the!accident!resulting!therefrom,!but!also!the!conditions!under!which!the!runaway!occurred.!Those!conditions!showing!of!themselves!that!the!defendant's!cochero!was!not!negligent!in!the!management!of!the!horse,!the+prima+facie+case!in!plaintiffs'!favor,!if!any,!was!destroyed!as!soon!as!made.!

It!is!a!matter!of!common!knowledge!as!well!as!proof!that!it!is!the!universal!practice!of!merchants!to!deliver!merchandise!of!the!kind!of!that!being!delivered!at!the!time!of!the!injury,!in!the!manner!in!which!that!was!then!being!delivered;!and!that!it!is!the!universal!practice!to!leave!the!horses!in!the!manner!in!which!they!were!left!at!the!time!of!the!accident.!This!is!the!custom!in!all!cities.!It!has!not!been!productive!of!accidents!or!injuries.!The!public,!finding!itself!unprejudiced!by!such!practice,!has!acquiesced!for!years!without!objection.!Ought!the!public!now,!through!the!courts,!

without!prior!objection!or!notice,!to!be!permitted!to!reverse!the!practice!of!decades!and!thereby!make!culpable!and!guilty!one!who!had!every!reason!and!assurance!to!believe!that!he!was!acting!under!the!sanction!of!the!strongest!of!all!civil!forces,!the!custom!of!a!people?!We!think!not.!

The!judgement!is!reversed,!without!special!finding!as!to!costs.!So!ordered.!

Arellano,+C.+J.,+Mapa,+Johnson,+Carson+and+Trent,+JJ.,+concur.!

! !

G.R.$No.$173180$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$August$24,$2011!

ALBERT$TISON$and$CLAUDIO$L.$JABON,!Petitioners,!!vs.!SPS.$GREGORIO$POMASIN$and$CONSORCIA$PONCE$POMASIN,$DIANNE$POMASIN$PAGUNSAN,$CYNTHIA$POMASIN,$SONIA$PEROL,$ANTONIO$SESISTA,$GINA$SESISTA,$and$REYNALDO$SESISTA,!Respondents.!

D!E!C!I!S!I!O!N!

PEREZ,$J.:!

Two!vehicles,!a!tractor/trailer!and!a!jitney,1!figured!in!a!vehicular!mishap!along!Maharlika!Highway!in!Barangay!Agos,!Polangui,!Albay!last!12!August!1994.!Laarni!Pomasin!(Laarni)!was!driving!the!jitney!towards!the!direction!of!Legaspi!City!while!the!tractor/trailer,!driven!by!Claudio!Jabon!(Jabon),!was!traversing!the!opposite!lane!going!towards!Naga!City.2!

The!opposing!parties!gave!two!different!versions!of!the!incident.!

Gregorio!Pomasin!(Gregorio),!Laarnis!father,!was!on!board!the!jitney!and!seated!on!the!passengers!side.!He!testified!that!while!the!jitney!was!passing!through!a!curve!going!downward,!he!saw!a!tractor/trailer!coming!from!the!opposite!direction!and!encroaching!on!the!jitneys!lane.!The!jitney!was!hit!by!the!tractor/trailer!and!it!was!dragged!further!causing!death!and!injuries!to!its!passengers.3!

On!the!other!hand,!Jabon!recounted!that!while!he!was!driving!the!tractor/trailer,!he!noticed!a!jitney!on!the!opposite!lane!falling!off!the!shoulder!of!the!road.!Thereafter,!it!began!running!in!a!zigzag!manner!and!heading!towards!the!direction!of!the!truck.!To!avoid!collision,!Jabon!immediately!swerved!the!tractor/trailer!to!the!right!where!it!hit!a!tree!and!sacks!of!palay.!Unfortunately,!the!jitney!still!hit!the!left!fender!of!the!tractor/trailer!before!it!was!thrown!a!few!meters!away.!The!tractor/trailer!was!likewise!damaged.4!

Multiple!death!and!injuries!to!those!in!the!jitney!resulted.!

Gregorio!was!injured!and!brought!to!the!Albay!Provincial!Hospital!in!Legaspi!City.!His!daughter,!Andrea!Pomasin!Pagunsan,!sister!Narcisa!Pomasin!Roncales!and!Abraham!Dionisio!Perol!died!on!the!spot.!His!other!daughter!Laarni,!the!jitney!driver,!and!granddaughter!Annie!Jane!Pomasin!Pagunsan!expired!at!the!hospital.!His!wife,!Consorcia!Pomasin,!another!granddaughter!Dianne!Pomasin!Pagunsan,!Ricky!Ponce,!Vicente!Pomasin,!Gina!Sesista,!Reynaldo!Sesista,!Antonio!Sesista!and!Sonia!Perol!sustained!injuries.5!On!the!other!hand,!Jabon!and!one!of!the!passengers!in!the!tractor/trailer!were!injured.6!

Albert!Tison!(Tison),!the!owner!of!the!truck,!extended!financial!assistance!to!respondents!by!giving!themP1,000.00!each!immediately!after!the!accident!and!P200,000.00!to!Cynthia!Pomasin!(Cynthia),!one!of!Gregorios!daughters.!Cynthia,!in!turn,!executed!an!Affidavit!of!Desistance.!

On!14!November!1994,!respondents!filed!a!complaint!for!damages!against!petitioners!before!the!Regional!Trial!Court!(RTC)!of!Antipolo.!They!alleged!that!the!proximate!cause!of!the!accident!was!the!negligence,!imprudence!and!carelessness!of!petitioners.!Respondents!prayed!for!indemnification!for!the!heirs!of!those!who!perished!in!the!accident!at!P50,000.00!each;!P500,000.00!for!hospitalization,!medical!and!burial!expenses;!P350,000.00!for!continuous!hospitalization!and!medical!expenses!of!Spouses!Pomasin;!P1,000,000.00!as!moral!damages;P250,000.00!as!exemplary!damages;!P30,000.00!for!loss!of!income!of!Cynthia;!P100,000.00!as!attorneys!fees!plus!P1,000.00!per!court!appearance;!P50,000.00!for!litigation!expenses;!and!cost!of!suit.7!

In!their!Answer,!petitioners!countered!that!it!was!Laarnis!negligence!which!proximately!caused!the!accident.!They!further!claimed!that!Cynthia!was!authorized!by!Spouses!Pomasin!to!enter!into!an!amicable!settlement!by!executing!an!Affidavit!of!Desistance.!Notwithstanding!the!affidavit,!petitioners!complained!that!respondents!filed!the!instant!complaint!to!harass!them!and!profit!from!the!recklessness!of!Laarni.!Petitioners!counterclaimed!for!damages.!

Petitioners!subsequently!filed!a!motion!to!dismiss!the!complaint!in!view!of!the!Affidavit!of!Desistance!executed!by!Cynthia.!The!motion!was!denied!for!lack!of!merit.8!

On!7!February!2000,!the!Regional!Trial!Court!rendered!judgment!in!favor!of!petitioners!dismissing!the!complaint!for!damages,!the!dispositive!portion!of!which!reads:!

WHEREFORE,!judgment!is!hereby!rendered!in!favor!of!the!defendants!and!against!plaintiffs!hereby!DISMISSING!the!instant!complaint!considering!that!plaintiffs!have!authorized!Cynthia!Pomasin!to!settle!the!case!amicably!forP200,000.00;!and!that!the!proximate!cause!of!the!accident!did!not!arise!from!the!fault!or!negligence!of!defendants!driver/employee!but!from!plaintiffs!driver.9!

The!trial!court!considered!the!testimony!of!Jabon!regarding!the!incident!more!convincing!and!reliable!than!that!of!Gregorios,!a!mere!passenger,!whose!observation!and!attention!to!the!road!is!not!as!focused!as!that!of!the!driver.!The!trial!court!concluded!that!Laarni!caused!the!collision!of!the!jitney!and!the!tractor/trailer.!The!trial!court!likewise!upheld!the!Affidavit!of!Desistance!as!having!been!executed!with!the!tacit!consent!of!respondents.!

The!Court!of!Appeals!disagreed!with!the!trial!court!and!ruled!that!the!reckless!driving!of!Jabon!caused!the!vehicular!collision.!In!support!of!such!finding,!the!Court!of!Appeals!relied!heavily!on!Gregorios!testimony!that!Jabon!was!driving!the!tractor/trailer!downward!too!fast!and!it!encroached!the!lane!of!the!jitney.!Based!on!the!gravity!of!the!impact!and!the!damage!caused!to!the!jitney!resulting!in!the!death!of!some!passengers,!the!Court!of!Appeals!inferred!that!Jabon!must!be!speeding.!The!appellate!court!noted!that!the!restriction!in!Jabons!drivers!license!was!violated,!thus,!giving!rise!to!the!presumption!that!he!was!negligent!at!the!time!of!the!accident.!Tison!was!likewise!held!liable!for!damages!for!his!failure!to!prove!due!diligence!in!supervising!Jabon!after!he!was!hired!as!driver!of!the!truck.!Finally,!the!appellate!court!disregarded!the!Affidavit!of!Desistance!executed!by!Cynthia!because!the!latter!had!no!written!power!of!attorney!from!respondents!and!that!she!was!so!confused!at!the!time!when!she!signed!the!affidavit!that!she!did!not!read!its!content.!

The!dispositive!portion!of!the!assailed!Decision!states:!

WHEREFORE,!the!present!appeal!is!granted,!and!the!trial!courts!Decision!dated!February!7,!2003!is!set!aside.!Defendants/appellees!are!ordered!to!pay!plaintiffs/appellants!or!their!heirs!the!following:!

a)!Actual!damages!of!P136,000.00!as!above!computed,!to!be!offset!with!the!P200,000.00!received!by!plaintiff/appellant!Cynthia!Pomasin;!

b)!Civil!indemnity!of!P50,000.00!for!the!death!of!each!victim,!to!be!offset!with!the!balance!of!P64,000.00!from!the!aforementioned!P200,000.00!of!civil!indemnity!received!by!plaintiff/appellant!Cynthia!Pomasin.!Hence,!the!net!amount!is!computed!at!P37,200.00!each,!as!follows:!

Narcisa!Pomasin!P37,200.00!

Laarni!Pomasin!P37,200.00!

Andrea!P.!Pagunsan!P37,200.00!

Dionisio!Perol!P37,200.00!

Annie!Jane!P.!Pagunsan!P37,200.00!

c)!Moral!damages!of!P50,000.00!to!each!of!the!victims;!and!

d)!Attorneys!fees!of!10%!of!the!total!award.10!

Petitioners!filed!a!Motion!for!Reconsideration,!which!was,!however,!denied!by!the!Court!of!Appeals!in!a!Resolution11!dated!19!July!2006.!

The!petition!for!review!raises!mixed!questions!of!fact!and!law!which!lead!back!to!the!very!issue!litigated!by!the!trial!court:!Who!is!the!negligent!party!or!the!party!at!fault?!

The!issue!of!negligence!is!factual!in!nature.12!And!the!rule,!and!the!exceptions,!is!that!factual!findings!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!are!generally!conclusive!but!may!be!reviewed!when:!(1)!the!factual!findings!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!and!the!trial!court!are!contradictory;!(2)!the!findings!are!grounded!entirely!on!speculation,!surmises!or!conjectures;!(3)!the!inference!made!by!the!Court!of!Appeals!from!its!findings!of!fact!is!manifestly!mistaken,!absurd!or!impossible;!(4)!there!is!grave!abuse!of!discretion!in!the!appreciation!of!facts;!(5)!the!appellate!court,!in!making!its!findings,!goes!beyond!the!issues!of!the!case!and!such!findings!are!contrary!to!the!admissions!of!both!appellant!and!appellee;!(6)!the!judgment!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!is!premised!on!a!misapprehension!of!facts;!(7)!the!Court!of!Appeals!fails!to!notice!certain!relevant!facts!which,!if!properly!considered,!will!justify!a!different!conclusion;!and!(8)!the!findings!of!fact!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!are!contrary!to!those!of!the!trial!court!or!are!mere!conclusions!without!citation!of!specific!evidence,!or!where!the!facts!set!forth!by!the!petitioner!are!not!disputed!by!respondent,!or!where!the!findings!of!fact!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!are!premised!on!the!absence!of!evidence!but!are!contradicted!by!the!evidence!on!record.13!

The!exceptions!to!the!rule!underscore!the!substance!and!weight!of!the!findings!of!the!trial!court.!They!render!inconclusive!contrary!findings!by!the!appellate!court.!The!reason!is!now!a!fundamental!principle:!

[A]ppellate!courts!do!not!disturb!the!findings!of!the!trial!courts!with!regard!to!the!assessment!of!the!credibility!of!witnesses.!The!reason!for!this!is!that!trial!courts!have!the!unique!opportunity!to!observe!the!witneses!first!hand!and!note!their!demeanor,!conduct!and!attitude!under!grilling!examination.!

The!exceptions!to!this!rule!are!when!the!trial!courts!findings!of!facts!and!conclusions!are!not!supported!by!the!evidence!on!record,!or!when!certain!facts!of!substance!and!value,!likely!to!change!the!outcome!of!the!case,!have!been!overlooked!by!the!trial!court,!or!when!the!assailed!decision!is!based!on!a!misapprehension!of!facts.14!

This!interplay!of!rules!and!exceptions!is!more!pronounced!in!this!case!of!quasi/delict!in!which,!according!to!Article!2176!of!the!Civil!Code,!whoever!by!act!or!omission!causes!damage!to!another,!there!being!fault!or!negligence,!is!obliged!to!pay!for!the!damage!done.!To!sustain!a!claim!based!on!quasi/delict,!the!following!requisites!must!concur:!(a)!damage!suffered!by!the!plaintiff;!(b)!fault!or!negligence!of!defendant;!and!(c)!connection!of!cause!and!effect!between!the!fault!or!negligence!of!defendant!and!the!damage!incurred!by!the!plaintiff.15!These!requisites!must!be!proved!by!a!preponderance!of!evidence.16!The!claimants,!respondents!in!this!case,!must,!therefore,!establish!their!claim!or!cause!of!action!by!preponderance!of!evidence,!evidence!which!is!of!greater!weight,!or!more!convincing!than!that!which!is!offered!in!opposition!to!it.17!

The!trial!court!found!that!the!jitney!driver!was!negligent.!We!give!weight!to!this!finding!greater!than!the!opposite!conclusion!reached!by!the!appellate!court!that!the!driver!of!the!tractor/trailer!caused!the!vehicular!collision.!

One!reason!why!the!trial!court!found!credible!the!version!of!Jabon!was!because!his!concentration!as!driver!is!more!focused!than!that!of!a!mere!passenger.!The!trial!court!expounded,!thus:!

In!the!appreciation!of!the!testimony!of!eye/witnesses,!one!overriding!consideration!is!their!opportunity!for!observation!in!getting!to!know!or!actually!seeing!or!observing!the!matter!they!testify!to.!This!most!particularly!holds!true!in!vehicular!collision!or!accident!cases!which!oftentimes!happen!merely!momentarily!or!in!the!split!of!a!second.!In!the!case!of!a!running!or!travelling!vehicle,!especially!in!highway!travel!which!doubtless!involves!faster!speed!than!in!ordinary!roads,!the!driver!is!concentrated!on!his!driving!continuously!from!moment!to!moment!even!in!long!trips.!While!in!the!case!of!a!mere!passenger,!he!does!not!have!to!direct!his!attention!to!the!safe!conduct!of!the!travelling!vehicle,!as!in!fact!he!may!converse!with!other!passengers!and!pay!no!attention!to!the!driving!or!safe!conduct!of!the!travelling!vehicle,!as!he!may!even!doze!off!to!sleep!if!he!wants!to,!rendering!his!opportunity!for!observation!on!the!precise!cause!of!the!accident!or!collision!or!immediately!preceding!thereto!not!as!much!as!that!of!the!driver!whose!attention!is!continuously!focused!on!his!driving.!So!that!as!between!the!respective!versions!of!the!plaintiffs!thru!their!passenger!and!that!of!the!defendants!thru!their!driver!as!to!the!cause!or!antecedent!causes!that!led!to!the!vehicular!collision!in!this!case,!the!version!of!the!driver!of!defendant!should!ordinarily!be!more!reliable!than!the!version!of!a!mere!passenger!of!Plaintiffs!vehicle,!simply!because!the!attention!of!the!passenger!is!not!as!much!concentrated!on!the!driving!as!that!of!the!driver,!consequently!the!capacity!for!observation!of!the!latter!of!the!latter!on!the!matter!testified!to!which!is!the!precise!point!of!inquiry!///!the!proximate!cause!of!the!accident!///!is!more!reasonably!reliable.!Moreover,!the!passengers!vision!is!not!as!good!as!that!of!the!driver!from!the!vantage!point!of!the!drivers!seat!especially!in!nighttime,!thus!

rendering!a!passengers!opportunity!for!observation!on!the!antecedent!causes!of!the!collision!lesser!than!that!of!the!driver.!This!being!so,!this!Court!is!more!inclined!to!believe!the!story!of!defendants!driver!Claudio!Jabon!that!the!jitney!driven!by!Laarni!Pomasin!fell!off!the!shoulder!of!the!curved!road!causing!it!to!run!thereafter!in!a!zigzag!manner!and!in!the!process!the!two!vehicles!approaching!each!other!from!opposite!directions!at!highway!speed!came!in!contact!with!each!other,!the!zigzagging!jeep!hitting!the!left!fender!of!the!truck!all!the!way!to!the!fuel!tank,!the!violent!impact!resulting!in!the!lighter!vehicle,!the!jitney,!being!thrown!away!due!to!the!disparate!size!of!the!truck.18!

The!appellate!court!labelled!the!trial!courts!rationalization!as!a!"sweeping!conjecture"19!and!countered!that!Gregorio!was!actually!occupying!the!front!seat!of!the!jitney!and!had!actually!a!clear!view!of!the!incident!despite!the!fact!that!he!was!not!driving.!

While!it!is!logical!that!a!drivers!attention!to!the!road!travelled!is!keener!than!that!of!a!mere!passenger,!it!should!also!be!considered!that!the!logic!will!hold!only!if!the!two!are!similarly!circumstanced,!and!only!as!a!general!rule,!so!that,!it!does!not!necessarily!follow!that!between!the!opposing!testimonies!of!a!driver!and!a!passenger,!the!former!is!more!credible.!The!factual!setting!of!the!event!testified!on!must!certainly!be!considered.!

The!trial!court!did!just!that!in!the!instant!case.!Contrary!to!the!observation!of!the!Court!of!Appeals,!the!relative!positions!of!a!driver!and!a!passenger!in!a!vehicle!was!not!the!only!basis!of!analysis!of!the!trial!court.!Notably,!aside!from!Jabons!alleged!vantage!point!to!clearly!observe!the!incident,!the!trial!court!also!took!into!consideration!Gregorios!admission!that!prior!to!the!accident,!the!jitney!was!running!on!the!"curving!and!downward"!portion!of!the!highway.!The!appellate!court,!however,!took!into!account!the!other!and!opposite!testimony!of!Gregorio!that!it!was!their!jitney!that!was!going!uphill!and!when!it!was!about!to!reach!a!curve,!he!saw!the!incoming!truck!running!very!fast!and!encroaching!the!jitneys!lane.!

We!perused!the!transcript!of!stenographic!notes!and!found!that!the!truck!was!actually!ascending!the!highway!when!it!collided!with!the!descending!jitney.!

During!the!direct!examination,!Jabon!narrated!that!the!tractor/trailer!was!ascending!at!a!speed!of!35!to!40!kilometers!per!hour!when!he!saw!the!jitney!on!the!opposite!lane!running!in!a!zigzag!manner,!thus:!

Q:!Now,!when!you!passed!by!the!municipality!of!Polangui,!Albay!at!about!5:00!of!August!12,!1994,!could!you!tell!the!Court!if!there!was!any!untoward!incident!that!happened?!

A:!There!was!sir.!

Q:!Could!you!please!tell!the!Court?!

A:!While!on!my!way!to!Liboro!coming!from!Sorsogon,!I!met!on!my!way!a!vehicle!going!on!a!zigzag!direction!and!it!even!fell!on!the!shoulder!and!proceeded!going!on!its!way!on!a!zigzag!direction.!

Q:!Could!you!describe!to!the!Court!what!was!the!kind!of!vehicle!you!saw!running!in!zigzag!direction?!

A:!A!Toyota/jitney!loaded!with!passengers!with!top/load.!

Q:!You!said!that!the!top[/]load!of!the!jeep!is!loaded?!

A:!Yes,!sir.!

Q:!Could!you!please!tell!the!Court!what!was!your!speed!at!the!time!when!you!saw!that!jeepney!with!top[/]load!running!on!a!zigzag!manner?!

A:!I!was!running!35!to!40!kilometers!per!hour!because!I!was!ascending!plain.!(Emphasis!supplied).20!

In!that!same!direct!examination,!Jabon!confirmed!that!he!was!ascending,!viz:!

Q:!Could!you!please!describe!the!condition!in!the!area!at!the!time!of!the!incident,!was!it!dark!or!day!time?!

A:!It!was!still!bright.!

COURT:!But!it!was!not!approaching!sunset?!

A:!Yes,!sir.!

Q:!Was!there!any!rain!at!that!time?!

A:!None!sir.!

Q:!So!the!road!was!dry?!

A:!Yes!sir.!

Q:!You!said!you!were!ascending!towards!the!direction!of!Liboro,!Camarines!Sur,!is!that!correct!at!the!time!the!incident!happened?!

A:!Yes!sir.21!(Emphasis!supplied).!

Upon!the!other!hand,!Gregorio,!during!his!direct!examination!described!the!road!condition!where!the!collision!took!place!as!"curving!and!downward,"!thus:!

Q:!Could!you!please!describe!the!place!where!the!incident!happened!in!so!far!as!the!road!condition!is!concerned?!

A:!The!road!was!curving!and!downward.!

Q:!And!the!road!was!of!course!clear!from!traffic,!is!that!correct?!

A:!Yes!sir.!

Q:!And!practically,!your!jitney!was!the!only!car!running!at!that!time?!

A:!Yes!sir.22!(Emphasis!supplied).!

Significantly,!this!is!a!confirmation!of!the!testimony!of!Jabon.!

However,!on!rebuttal,!Gregorio!turned!around!and!stated!that!the!jitney!was!going!uphill!when!he!saw!the!tractor/trailer!running!down!very!fact!and!encroaching!on!their!lane,!to!wit:!

Q:!Mr.!Claudio!Jabon,!the!driver!of!the!trailer!truck!that!collided!with!your!owner!jeepney!that!you!were!riding!testified!in!open!Court!on!July!24,!1997!which!I!quote,!while!on!my!way!to!Liboro!coming!to!Sorsogon!I!met!a!vehicle!going!on!a!zig/zag!direction!and!it!even!fell!on!the!shoulder!and!proceeded!going!on!its!way!on!zig/zag!direction,!what!can!you!say!about!this!statement!of!this!witness?!

A:!We!were!no[t]!zigzagging!but!because!we!were!going!uphill!and!about!to!reach!a!curved!(sic)!we!saw!the!on/coming!vehicle!going!down!very!fast!and!encroaching!on!our!lane!so!our!driver!swerved!our!vehicle!to!the!right!but!still!we!were!hit!by!the!on/coming!vehicle.23!(Emphasis!supplied).!

The!declaration!of!Jabon!with!respect!to!the!road!condition!was!straightforward!and!consistent.1awp+The+recollection+of+Gregorio+veered+from+"curving+and+downward"+to+uphill.24+On+this+point,+Jabon+and+his+testimony+is+more+credible.!

The!fact!that!the!jitney!easily!fell!into!the!road!shoulder,!an!undebated!fact,!supports!the!trial!courts!conclusion!that!the!jitney!was!indeed!going!downhill!which,!it!may!be!repeated,!was!the!original!testimony!of!Gregorio!that!the!road!was!"curving!and!downward."25!It!is!this!conclusion,!prodded!by!the!inconsistency!of!Gregorios!testimony,!that!gives!credence!to!the!further!testimony!of!Jabon!that!the!herein!respondents!jitney,!"loaded!with!passengers!with!top/load"!"was!running!in!a!zigzag!manner."26!

Going!downward,!the!jitney!had!the!tendency!to!accelerate.!The!fall!into!the!shoulder!of!the!road!can!result!in!the!loss!of!control!of!the!jitney,!which!explains!why!it!was!running!in!a!zigzag!manner!before!it!hit!the!tractor/trailer.!

There!was!no!showing!that!the!tractor/trailer!was!speeding.!There!is!a!preponderance!of!evidence!that!the!tractor/trailer!was!in!fact!ascending.!Considering!its!size!and!the!weight!of!the!tractor/trailer,!its!speed!could!not!be!more!than!that!of!a!fully!loaded!jitney!which!was!running!downhill!in!a!zigzagging!manner.!

Neither!can!it!be!inferred!that!Jabon!was!negligent.!In!hindsight,!it!can!be!argued!that!Jabon!should!have!swerved!to!the!right!upon!seeing!the!jitney!zigzagging!before!it!collided!with!the!tractor/trailer.!Accidents,!though,!happen!in!an!instant,!and,!understandably!in!this!case,!leaving!the!driver!without!sufficient!time!and!space!to!maneuver!a!vehicle!the!size!of!a!tractor/trailer!uphill!and!away!from!collision!with!the!jitney!oncoming!downhill.!

Clearly,!the!negligence!of!Gregorios!daughter,!Laarni!was!the!proximate!cause!of!the!accident.!

We!did!not!lose!sight!of!the!fact!that!at!the!time!of!the!incident,!Jabon!was!prohibited!from!driving!the!truck!due!to!the!restriction!imposed!on!his!drivers!license,!i.e.,!restriction!code!2!and!3.!As!a!matter!of!fact,!Jabon!even!asked!the!Land!Transportation!Office!to!reinstate!his!articulated!license!containing!restriction!code!8!which!would!allow!him!to!drive!a!tractor/trailer.!The!Court!of!Appeals!concluded!therefrom!that!Jabon!was!violating!a!traffic!regulation!at!the!time!of!the!collision.!

Driving!without!a!proper!license!is!a!violation!of!traffic!regulation.!Under!Article!2185!of!the!Civil!Code,!the!legal!presumption!of!negligence!arises!if!at!the!time!of!the!mishap,!a!person!was!violating!any!traffic!regulation.!However,!in!Sanitary!Steam!Laundry,!Inc.!v.!Court!of!Appeals,27!we!held!that!a!causal!connection!must!exist!between!the!injury!received!and!the!violation!of!the!traffic!regulation.!It!must!be!proven!that!the!violation!of!the!traffic!regulation!was!the!proximate!or!legal!cause!of!the!injury!or!that!it!substantially!contributed!thereto.!Negligence,!consisting!in!whole!or!in!part,!of!violation!of!law,!like!any!other!negligence,!is!without!legal!consequence!unless!it!is!a!contributing!cause!of!the!injury.28!Likewise!controlling!is!our!ruling!in!Aonuevo!v.!Court!of!Appeals29!where!we!reiterated!that!negligence!per+se,!arising!from!the!mere!violation!of!a!traffic!statute,!need!not!be!sufficient!in!itself!in!establishing!liability!for!damages.!In!said!case,!Aonuevo,!who!was!driving!a!car,!did!not!attempt!"to!establish!a!causal!connection!between!the!safety!violations!imputed!to!the!injured!cyclist,!and!the!accident!itself.!Instead,!he!relied!on!a!putative!presumption!that!these!violations!in!themselves!sufficiently!established!negligence!appreciable!against!the!cyclist.!Since!the!onus!on!Aonuevo!is!to!conclusively!prove!the!link!between!the!violations!and!the!accident,!we!can!deem!him!as!having!failed!to!discharge!his!necessary!burden!of!proving!the!cyclists!own!liability."30!We!took!the!occasion!to!state!that:!

The!rule!on!negligence!per+se!must!admit!qualifications!that!may!arise!from!the!logical!consequences!of!the!facts!leading!to!the!mishap.!The!doctrine!(and!Article!2185,!for!that!matter)!is!undeniably!useful!as!a!judicial!guide!in!adjudging!liability,!for!it!seeks!to!impute!culpability!arising!from!the!failure!of!the!actor!to!perform!up!to!a!standard!established!by!a!legal!fiat.!But!the!doctrine!should!not!be!rendered!inflexible!so!as!to!deny!relief!when!in!fact!there!is!no!causal!relation!between!the!statutory!vio