Tiu v. Arriesgado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case arose from a vehicular accident on March 16, 1987, when a D' Rough Riders passenger bus, driven by Virgilio Te Laspiñas and operated by William Tiu, collided with a stalled cargo truck. The collision occurred in Compostela, Cebu, after the cargo truck, owned by Benjamin Condor and driven by Sergio Pedrano, experienced a tire blowout and was parked on the side of the national highway. The impact resulted in injuries to several passengers, including Pedro A. Arriesgado, and the death of his wife, Felisa Pepito Arriesgado. Procedural History: Pedro A. Arriesgado filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage, damages, and attorney's fees against William Tiu and Virgilio Te Laspiñas. The petitioners, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against the truck owner (Benjamin Condor), the truck driver (Sergio Pedrano), and the bus insurer (Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance, Inc.). The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Arriesgado, holding Tiu liable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision with modifications to the awarded damages. The petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' decision via a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They argue that the appellate court erred in not holding respondents Benjamin Condor and Sergio Pedrano liable for negligence, and in finding the petitioners themselves negligent. They also question the award of exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses, and the appellate court's failure to hold respondent Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance, Inc. liable. The petitioners contend that the proximate cause of the incident was the truck's improper parking and lack of an early warning device, and that Tiu exercised due diligence in selecting and supervising his drivers. Respondent Arriesgado, conversely, argues that factual findings are not reviewable by the Supreme Court and seeks reinstatement of higher damages.
Issue(s)
Whether respondents Benjamin Condor and Sergio Pedrano were negligent and thus liable. Whether petitioners William Tiu and Virgilio Te Laspiñas were negligent and liable. Whether petitioner William Tiu exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of his drivers. Whether there was a legal and factual basis for the award of damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. Whether respondent Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance, Inc. is liable.
Ruling
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision with modifications. It held petitioners William Tiu and Virgilio Te Laspiñas liable for breach of contract of carriage. It also found respondents Benjamin Condor and Sergio Pedrano negligent. Respondent Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance, Inc. was ordered to pay jointly and severally with petitioner William Tiu up to the limits of the insurance policy.
Ratio Decidendi
On the negligence of respondents Pedrano and Condor: The Court found that both Pedrano and Condor were negligent. Pedrano's failure to park the truck properly and to use warning lights or flares, in violation of Section 34(g) of R.A. No. 4136, created an unreasonable risk. This negligence was considered the proximate cause of the accident, and it created a presumption of negligence on the part of Condor, the employer, for failing to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of his employee. The Court noted that the lower courts erred in absolving them solely because of the bus driver's speed. On the negligence of petitioner Laspiñas and the liability of petitioner Tiu as a common carrier: The Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that petitioner Laspiñas was negligent. Despite his claim of driving at 40-50 kph, the damage to the truck and the circumstances (early morning, no oncoming vehicles) supported the conclusion that he was driving at a fast speed. His failure to stop within the assured clear distance ahead, in violation of Section 35 of R.A. No. 4136, created a presumption of negligence under Article 2185 of the Civil Code. The Court emphasized that a driver must exercise careful and prudent speed, having due regard for traffic and road conditions, and must be able to stop within the assured clear distance ahead. The Court reiterated that common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in ensuring the safety of their passengers. Upon the occurrence of an accident, a presumption of negligence arises, and the carrier must prove it exercised extraordinary diligence. Petitioner Tiu failed to rebut this presumption, and the negligence of his driver, Laspiñas, was binding upon him. The Court stressed that the law compels common carriers to curb the recklessness of their drivers by imposing the highest possible degree of diligence. On the inapplicability of the Doctrine of Last Clear Chance: The Court clarified that the doctrine of last clear chance is not applicable in an action between a passenger and a carrier for breach of contract of carriage. This doctrine applies in suits between owners or drivers of colliding vehicles. It would be inequitable to exempt a negligent carrier on the ground that the other party was also negligent, as the passenger's claim arises from a contractual obligation. On Damages: The Court affirmed the award of moral damages and exemplary damages, noting that exemplary damages are authorized in cases of gross negligence. It also affirmed the award for actual damages and attorney's fees. The Court reiterated that the surviving spouse is entitled to indemnity for the death of the wife, and that in cases where the negligence of a bus driver concurs with that of a third party, all are jointly and severally liable. On the liability of respondent PPSII: The Court held that PPSII, as the insurer, was liable up to the limits of the insurance policy. While PPSII admitted the existence of the contract and settled claims of other passengers, it could not simply deny Arriesgado's claim as being beyond the scheduled indemnity. The Certificate of Cover indicated a third-party liability limit of ₱50,000.00 per accident and ₱12,000.00 per person for death. PPSII should have paid the death indemnity of ₱12,000.00 and the medical expenses of ₱1,113.80, which did not exceed the aggregate limit.
Main Doctrine
A common carrier is presumed negligent upon the happening of an accident, and it is incumbent upon the carrier to prove that it observed extraordinary diligence to overcome this presumption. The doctrine of last clear chance is inapplicable in an action between a passenger and a carrier for breach of contract of carriage.