McKee v. Intermediate Appellate Court
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A vehicular accident occurred on January 8, 1977, involving a cargo truck owned by private respondents and driven by Ruben Galang, and a Ford Escort car driven by Jose Koh. The collision resulted in the deaths of Jose Koh, Kim Koh McKee, and Loida Bondoc, and physical injuries to George Koh McKee, Christopher Koh McKee, and Araceli Koh McKee. The car was traveling north, and the truck was traveling south. As the car approached Pulong Pulo Bridge, two boys darted into its lane. Jose Koh swerved left into the truck's lane to avoid hitting the boys, then attempted to return to his lane. The collision occurred in the truck's lane. Procedural History: Two civil cases for damages based on quasi-delict were filed by the heirs of the deceased and the injured passengers against the truck owners. A criminal case for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Multiple Homicide and Physical Injuries and Damage to Property was filed against the truck driver, Ruben Galang. The trial court dismissed the civil cases, finding the preponderance of evidence in favor of the defendants and awarding them damages on their counterclaim. The criminal case resulted in the conviction of Ruben Galang. The Court of Appeals initially reversed the trial court's decision in the civil cases, finding the truck driver's negligence to be the proximate cause. However, upon reconsideration, the Court of Appeals set aside its decision and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the civil cases. The criminal conviction of Galang was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and subsequently denied review by the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioners (heirs of the deceased and injured) sought review of the Court of Appeals' Resolution that reversed its earlier decision and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the civil cases. They argued that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in disregarding the driver's admissions, basing its resolution on mere presumptions, and disregarding evidence on record. They also questioned the Court of Appeals' pronouncement that it could not categorically adopt the findings of guilt in the criminal case and that it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to prove the driver's negligence as the proximate cause.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing its decision and affirming the trial court's dismissal of the civil cases. Whether the negligence of the car driver (Jose Koh) or the truck driver (Ruben Galang) was the proximate cause of the collision, and whether the doctrine of last clear chance is applicable. Whether the private respondents (truck owners) are liable for damages under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Whether the civil action is independent from the criminal case.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated April 3, 1984, is set aside, and its Decision dated November 29, 1983, is reinstated, with modification increasing the indemnity for death to P50,000.00 each for Jose Koh and Kim Koh McKee. The trial court's dismissal of the civil cases is reversed, and the private respondents are held liable for damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Court of Appeals' reversal of its own decision: The Court found that the Court of Appeals' resolution reversing its earlier decision lacked sufficient legal and factual basis. The findings and conclusions in the assailed resolution were not supported by evidence, were based on a misapprehension of facts, and the inferences made were manifestly mistaken. The Court found the earlier decision of the Court of Appeals, which correctly appreciated the facts, to be more in line with the evidence. On the proximate cause of the collision and the applicability of the doctrine of last clear chance: The Court found that the negligence of the truck driver, Ruben Galang, was the proximate cause of the accident. While Jose Koh swerved into the truck's lane to avoid hitting two boys who suddenly darted into the road, this act was a necessary emergency maneuver to avoid a greater peril. The Court held that Jose Koh adopted the best means possible in the given situation and was not negligent. Even if Jose Koh were considered negligent, the doctrine of last clear chance applied, as the truck driver had the last clear opportunity to avoid the collision but failed to do so by continuing at full speed instead of slowing down or swerving. The Court applied the doctrine of last clear chance, stating that the truck driver's failure to exert ordinary care to avoid the collision, despite seeing the car in his lane, made him solely responsible. The truck driver's negligence in failing to slow down or swerve, when he had the opportunity to do so, intervened as the immediate or proximate cause of the accident, notwithstanding any prior negligence of Jose Koh. On the liability of the employers (private respondents): Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are directly and primarily liable for damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. The presumption of negligence on the part of the employers arises from the negligence of their employee. This presumption is juris tantum and can only be overcome by proving that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees. The private respondents failed to interpose this defense in their answers or adduce evidence to prove it. On the independence of civil actions from criminal cases: The Court reiterated that civil actions arising from quasi-delict are independent of the criminal case. The judgment of conviction in the criminal case against the driver has no relevance or importance to the civil case, especially since the employers were not parties to the criminal case. The responsibility arising from quasi-delict is distinct from civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code.
Main Doctrine
The negligence of the truck driver, who had the last clear chance to avoid the collision despite the car driver's prior act of swerving into the truck's lane to avoid hitting children, was the proximate cause of the accident. Employers are directly and primarily liable for damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, and this liability ceases only if they prove they exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in their selection and supervision.