Estacion v. Bernardo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 16, 1982, respondent Noe Bernardo was a passenger in a Ford Fiera driven by respondent Geminiano Quinquillera and owned by respondent Cecilia Bandoquillo. While standing on the left rear carrier of the Fiera due to it being full, the Fiera stopped to pick up passengers. Suddenly, an Isuzu cargo truck owned by petitioner Larry Estacion and driven by Bienvenido Gerosano, traveling in the same direction, hit the rear end of the Fiera, crushing respondent Noe's legs and feet. Respondent Noe sustained severe injuries requiring amputation of his lower left leg. Procedural History: Respondent Noe, through his guardian ad litem, filed a complaint for damages arising from quasi delict against petitioner Estacion and driver Gerosano, alleging reckless imprudence and negligence. Petitioner and Gerosano filed a third-party complaint against Bandoquillo and Quinquillera, alleging their negligence was the proximate cause. Driver Gerosano was found guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple physical injuries in a criminal case. The RTC ruled that Gerosano's negligence was the proximate cause and held Estacion and Gerosano jointly and solidarily liable for actual and moral damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. The RTC dismissed the third-party complaint. The CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner sought to annul the CA decision, arguing he exercised due diligence in selecting his driver and maintaining his truck, and that the CA erred in exonerating Bandoquillo and Quinquillera, whose negligence was the proximate cause. Petitioner also contended that respondent Noe's act of standing on the rear carrier was contributory negligence, and that the Fiera driver's negligence (overtaking, sudden stop, overloading) was the proximate cause.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that petitioner Larry Estacion exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that petitioner Larry Estacion exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of his employee and in maintaining his cargo truck roadworthy and in good operating condition. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in exonerating respondents Cecilia Bandoquillo and Geminiano Quinquillera. Whether respondent Noe Bernardo was guilty of contributory negligence. Whether respondent Geminiano Quinquillera was negligent.
Ruling
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition, affirming the CA decision with modification. It held petitioner Estacion and driver Gerosano liable, but also found contributory negligence on the part of respondent Noe Bernardo and negligence on the part of Fiera driver Quinquillera and owner Bandoquillo. Consequently, the damages awarded were mitigated, and Bandoquillo and Quinquillera were held jointly and solidarily liable with Estacion and Gerosano.
Ratio Decidendi
On the negligence of petitioner's driver, Gerosano: The Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that Gerosano's negligent and careless driving, characterized by excessive speed and faulty brakes, was the proximate cause of the injury. Evidence such as the 48-foot skid mark and damage to the truck supported the conclusion that Gerosano was driving at a fast speed. The presence of only one tire mark indicated faulty brakes, contrary to petitioner's claims about road conditions. Therefore, the negligent act of driving at a fast speed with faulty brakes directly led to respondent Noe's injury. On petitioner Estacion's liability under Article 2180: The Court found that petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of negligence in the selection and supervision of his driver, Gerosano. Petitioner did not present convincing proof of examining Gerosano's qualifications, experience, and service records beyond his driver's license. Gerosano's admission that petitioner was his first employer in Dumaguete and that he was hired on the day of application, without presenting driving records from Mindanao, demonstrated a lack of due diligence in selection. Furthermore, petitioner failed to show any training programs or road safety guidelines for his drivers, indicating a lack of due diligence in supervision. Petitioner also failed to provide records of maintenance checks for the cargo truck. On the exoneration of respondents Bandoquillo and Quinquillera: The Court disagreed with the CA's exoneration of Bandoquillo and Quinquillera. It found respondent Noe's act of standing on the rear carrier to be contributory negligence, which would not have occurred if the Fiera had not been overloaded. Respondent Quinquillera's act of allowing Noe to stand on the rear portion violated Section 32(c) of RA 4136, constituting negligence. This negligence created an undue risk of harm to Noe. Consequently, a presumption of negligence arose against Bandoquillo, the owner, for failure to properly supervise her employee, which was not rebutted. On respondent Noe Bernardo's contributory negligence and mitigation of damages: The Court found merit in petitioner's contention that respondent Noe's act of standing on the rear carrier of the Fiera was contributory negligence. This conduct fell below the standard of care required for his own protection, as it exposed him to bodily injury. The Court cited that to be considered contributory negligence, the act must be done in disregard of warning or signs of impending danger. Standing on the rear carrier was deemed a dangerous act, contributing to the extent of his injury. Applying Article 2179 of the Civil Code, the Court ruled that due to the contributory negligence of respondent Noe, the damages awarded should be mitigated. The Court allocated the damages on an 80-20 ratio, with respondent Noe bearing 20% of the actual and moral damages. This meant that 80% of the awarded actual and moral damages, along with attorney's fees and litigation expenses, would be paid by the defendants and third-party defendants jointly and solidarily. On respondent Geminiano Quinquillera's negligence: Respondent Quinquillera's act of allowing Noe to stand on the rear portion violated Section 32(c) of RA 4136, constituting negligence. This negligence created an undue risk of harm to Noe.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court modified the ruling by finding contributory negligence on the part of the injured passenger and the Fiera driver, thus mitigating the damages awarded and holding the owner and driver of the Fiera jointly and solidarily liable with the truck owner and driver.