Alfredo Mallari, Sr. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: On October 14, 1987, a passenger jeepney owned by petitioner Alfredo Mallari Sr. and driven by petitioner Alfredo Mallari Jr. collided with a delivery van owned by respondent Bulletin Publishing Corporation. The collision occurred along the National Highway in Dinalupihan, Bataan, resulting in the death of Israel Reyes, a passenger on the jeepney. The widow of the deceased, Claudia G. Reyes, filed a complaint for damages against both drivers and their respective companies, alleging negligence as the proximate cause of the accident. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court initially found the driver of the Bulletin van, Felix Angeles, to be the proximate cause of the collision and ordered Bulletin Publishing Corporation and Angeles to pay damages. The trial court dismissed the complaint against the petitioners, Alfredo Mallari Sr. and Alfredo Mallari Jr. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, finding petitioner Alfredo Mallari Jr. solely negligent and holding the petitioners liable for damages. The appellate court absolved Bulletin Publishing Corporation and its driver from liability. 3. The Petition: Petitioners Alfredo Mallari Sr. and Alfredo Mallari Jr. seek review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision. They contend that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Mallari Jr. overtook a vehicle on a curve and that the trial court, having observed the witnesses, was in a better position to assess credibility. Petitioners argue that the trial court's finding of negligence on the part of the Bulletin van driver should have been given more weight. The petition challenges the appellate court's conclusion that Mallari Jr.'s act of overtaking was the proximate cause of the fatal accident.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding petitioner Alfredo Mallari Jr. solely negligent and the proximate cause of the collision. Whether the findings of the RTC, which observed the witnesses, should be given more weight than those of the Court of Appeals. Whether petitioners, as owners and operators of a common carrier, are liable for the death of a passenger due to the negligence of their driver.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. Petitioners Alfredo Mallari Sr. and Alfredo Mallari Jr. are ordered jointly and severally to pay Claudia G. Reyes P1,006,777.50 for loss of earning capacity, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for death, and P10,000.00 for attorney's fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sole negligence of petitioner Alfredo Mallari Jr. and the proximate cause of the collision: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that the collision was caused by the sole negligence of petitioner Alfredo Mallari Jr. The Court noted that petitioner Mallari Jr. himself testified that he overtook a Fiera which had stopped on his lane while negotiating a curve on the highway, and that he saw the BULLETIN van coming from the opposite direction. This act of overtaking was in clear violation of Section 41, paragraphs (a) and (b), of Republic Act No. 4136, as amended (The Land Transportation and Traffic Code), which prohibits overtaking on curves where the driver's view is obstructed. The Court reiterated the rule that a driver abandoning his proper lane for the purpose of overtaking has the duty to see to it that the road is clear and not to proceed if he cannot do so in safety. By his own admission, Mallari Jr. saw the oncoming van but failed to consider its speed, mindlessly occupying the left lane and overtaking two vehicles at a curve. This reckless act was deemed the proximate cause of the collision. The Court also invoked Article 2185 of the Civil Code, which presumes negligence if a driver violates a traffic regulation at the time of the mishap, a presumption that petitioners failed to overcome. On the weight of findings between RTC and CA: The Court held that it could not sustain petitioners' contention that the RTC, having observed the witnesses, was in a better position to assess credibility. The Court found that the evidence, including petitioner Mallari Jr.'s own testimony and the police sketch and spot report, supported the CA's findings. The Court emphasized that while findings of fact of the RTC are generally given great weight, this rule admits of exceptions, such as when the CA, in its review, finds that the RTC overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied certain facts or circumstances, which was the case here. On the liability of the common carrier: The Court held that the negligence and recklessness of petitioner Alfredo Mallari Jr., the driver of the passenger jeepney, were binding upon petitioner Alfredo Mallari Sr., the owner and operator of the common carrier. The Court cited Article 1755 of the Civil Code, which mandates that a common carrier is bound to carry passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence. Furthermore, Article 1756 of the Civil Code presumes a common carrier to be at fault or negligent in case of death or injuries to passengers, unless it proves it observed extraordinary diligence. Article 1759 further states that a common carrier is liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of its employees. The Court clarified that this liability does not cease upon proof of exercising diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of employees. By the contract of carriage, the carrier assumed the express obligation to transport passengers safely, and any injury or death suffered by passengers is attributable to the carrier's fault or negligence.
Main Doctrine
A common carrier is bound to carry passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons with due regard for all the circumstances. In case of death or injuries to passengers, a common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless it proves that it observed extraordinary diligence. The negligence of the driver of a common carrier is binding upon the owner.