Vergara v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An action for damages based on quasi-delict was filed by private respondent Amadeo Azarcon against petitioner Vicente Vergara. The case stemmed from a vehicular accident on August 5, 1979, in Gapan, Nueva Ecija, where a cargo truck owned by petitioner, driven by Martin Belmonte, rammed the store-residence of private respondent, causing damages assessed at P53,024.22. Procedural History: Petitioner alleged that his driver was diligent, that a blown-out tire and defective brakes caused the accident, and that it was an act of God. He filed a third-party complaint against Travellers Insurance and Surety Corporation, the insurer of the truck. The trial court ruled in favor of private respondent. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, ordering petitioner to pay actual, moral, and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and costs, jointly and severally with the insurance company. The insurance company was ordered to pay petitioner for third-party liability and attorney's fees. The Petition: Petitioner sought review of the Court of Appeals' decision, contending that the latter erred in finding him guilty of fault or negligence.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court erred in finding the petitioner guilty of fault or negligence. Whether the respondent court erred in awarding actual, moral, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees and costs.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals did not err in finding the petitioner guilty of fault or negligence and in awarding damages and attorney's fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of fault or negligence: The requisites of a quasi-delict, namely, damages to the plaintiff, negligence by the defendant or someone for whom he is responsible, and the causal connection between negligence and damages, were present. The occurrence of the vehicular accident was established by competent evidence, including the police report and testimony. The police report indicated the truck veered across the highway, hitting other vehicles before ramming the store. The driver's claim of defective brakes, even if true, does not constitute a fortuitous event because such defects are curable and the accident preventable. Furthermore, petitioner failed to present evidence to overcome the disputable presumption of negligence in the selection and supervision of his driver. The findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, regarding negligence were not disturbed. On the issue of awarding damages and attorney's fees: Since the existence of negligence and the resulting damages were sufficiently established, the award of actual damages (P53,024.22), moral damages (P10,000.00), exemplary damages (P10,000.00), and attorney's fees (P5,000.00) by the Court of Appeals was proper and tenable. The appellate court's affirmation of the trial court's decision, which included these awards, was based on the established facts and legal principles governing quasi-delicts. The petitioner's contention that these awards were erroneous is therefore without merit.
Main Doctrine
A mishap caused by defective brakes cannot be considered a fortuitous event as the defects were curable and the accident preventable. Furthermore, failure to adduce evidence to overcome the disputable presumption of negligence in the selection and supervision of a driver renders the employer liable for quasi-delict.