Sabido v. Custodio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the death of Agripino Custodio, a passenger on a bus operated by the Laguna-Tayabas Bus Company (LTB). While hanging on the left side of the bus due to overcrowding, Custodio was struck and killed by a truck driven by Aser Lagunda and owned by Prospero Sabido. The incident occurred on a road curve in Barrio Halang, Municipality of Lumban, Province of Laguna. Procedural History: The case originated in the Court of First Instance of Laguna, which found both the LTB and its driver Nicasio Mudales liable for breach of contract of carriage, and petitioners Prospero Sabido and Aser Lagunda liable for quasi-delict. All were ordered to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of Agripino Custodio. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The petitioners, Sabido and Lagunda, are now seeking review of the Court of Appeals' decision. The Petition: Petitioners Prospero Sabido and Aser Lagunda seek review by certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision. They contend that the death of Agripino Custodio was solely due to the negligence of the LTB and its driver, that they themselves were not negligent, and therefore, they should not be held solidarily liable with the LTB and its driver. They argue that the LTB's negligence in allowing Custodio to hang on the side of the bus, in violation of traffic laws, was the proximate cause of the death.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioners Prospero Sabido and Aser Lagunda were negligent in connection with the death of Agripino Custodio. Whether petitioners Prospero Sabido and Aser Lagunda can be held solidarily liable with the Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co. and its driver Nicasio Mudales for the death of Agripino Custodio.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding petitioners Prospero Sabido and Aser Lagunda jointly and severally liable with the Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co. and its driver Nicasio Mudales for the death of Agripino Custodio.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that petitioners were guilty of contributory negligence. The truck driven by petitioner Lagunda was running at a considerable speed while negotiating a sharp curve. Instead of keeping close to its right side of the road, the truck was driven on its middle portion, coming so near the passenger bus that it sideswiped a passenger riding on the running board. Petitioner Lagunda himself admitted that he saw the passengers hanging on the left side of the bus when his vehicle was still five to seven meters away, yet he failed to exercise prudence to avoid the accident, despite the presence of a shallow canal on his right side which he could have used. The Court noted that the distance between the vehicles was such that Lagunda could have avoided the collision if his truck were not running at a great speed. On Issue 2: The Court held that petitioners could be held solidarily liable with the Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co. and its driver. Although the negligence of the carrier and its driver stemmed from a breach of contract of carriage, and the negligence of the petitioners stemmed from a quasi-delict, both acts of negligence were found to be the direct and proximate cause of the death of Agripino Custodio. The Court cited the rule that where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omissions of two or more persons, acting independently of each other, are, in combination, the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third person, and it is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury, either is responsible for the whole injury. Furthermore, the negligence of petitioners was the last in point of time, giving them the last clear chance to avoid the accident.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the principle that when the independent negligent acts of multiple parties are the proximate cause of a single injury, and the extent of each party's contribution to the damage cannot be determined, all such parties shall be held jointly and severally liable for the entire injury. This doctrine applies even if one liability stems from a breach of contract and another from a quasi-delict, as long as both negligent acts are direct and proximate causes of the resulting harm.