Cortel v. Gepaya-Lim
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 29, 2004, a bus operated by Yellow Bus Line, Inc. and driven by Eddie Cortel y Carna, collided with a motorcycle driven by SPO3 Robert C. Lim. The incident occurred at approximately 9:45 in the evening at Crossing Rubber in Tupi, South Cotabato. Cortel alleged that he was driving at a reduced speed of 20 kilometers per hour when he noticed two trucks with glaring headlights approaching. He claimed the bus then struck Lim's motorcycle, which he asserted had no tail light reflectors. The impact dragged the motorcycle and threw Lim, who was not wearing a helmet, into the bus, causing severe injuries. Lim's widow, Cecile Gepaya-Lim, subsequently filed a complaint for damages against Cortel and Yellow Bus Line. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, Cotabato, Branch 18, rendered a judgment on April 27, 2012, finding Cortel and Yellow Bus Line jointly and severally liable for Lim's death. The trial court awarded various damages, including death compensation, funeral and burial expenses, compensation for loss of earning capacity, damages to the motorcycle, and attorney's fees. The petitioners appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). In its Decision dated October 16, 2014, the CA affirmed the trial court's judgment with modification, applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and recomputing the loss of earning capacity. The CA also modified the amounts for funeral and burial expenses and death indemnity, and awarded moral damages. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated April 21, 2015, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioners Eddie Cortel y Carna and Yellow Bus Line, Inc. filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. They contend that the CA committed reversible error in affirming the trial court's decision with modifications. Specifically, petitioners challenge the CA's findings regarding the speed of the bus at the time of the accident and its application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. They argue that the CA erred in concluding that the bus was driven at a high speed and that Lim was not contributorily negligent. The core of their petition is to seek a review of the factual findings of the lower courts, which they believe were erroneously made.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming with modifications the decision of the trial court, and whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was correctly applied. Whether petitioners failed to prove due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee. Whether the award of damages was proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming with modification the decision of the Court of Appeals. Petitioners were ordered to pay jointly and severally respondent Cecile Gepaya-Lim the following: P2,139,540 for loss of earning capacity, P25,000 as temperate damages for funeral and burial expenses, P50,000 as death indemnity, P100,000 as moral damages, and P15,000 as attorney's fees. An interest rate of 6% per annum was imposed on all damages from the date of finality until full payment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged reversible error in affirming the trial court's decision and applying res ipsa loquitur: The Court held that the factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive. The Court found no justification to deviate from these findings. The result of the collision, including the impact that threw the rider upward and the distance the motorcycle was dragged, indicated that the bus was driving fast, contrary to Cortel's claim of 20 kph. The damages to both vehicles also disproved the claimed slow speed. The Court reiterated the elements of res ipsa loquitur: (1) the accident is of such character as to warrant an inference of negligence; (2) the instrumentality causing injury was under the exclusive control of the defendant; and (3) the accident was not due to the injured person's voluntary action or contribution. The Court found these elements present, as Cortel had exclusive control of the bus, the collision would not have happened without his negligence, and there was no proof of contributory negligence by Lim. On the failure to prove due diligence by Yellow Bus Line: The Court agreed with the lower courts that Yellow Bus Line failed to prove it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees. The certificates of attendance to seminars presented by Yellow Bus Line were not offered in evidence during trial and were insufficient to prove due diligence. The presumption of negligence on the employer's part, arising from the employee's negligence causing damage, was not rebutted. On the award of damages: The Court sustained the Court of Appeals' award for loss of earning capacity, noting the computation followed established formulas. The Court clarified that the P25,000 awarded was for temperate damages for funeral and burial expenses, not actual damages to the motorcycle, as no proof of the latter was presented. The Court also affirmed the awards for death indemnity, moral damages, and attorney's fees, while modifying the interest rate on all damages from the date of finality of the decision.
Main Doctrine
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies when the accident is of such character as to warrant an inference that it would not have happened except for the defendant's negligence, the accident was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management or control of the defendant, and the accident was not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured. In cases of vehicular accidents, the employer is presumed negligent if the employee caused damage due to negligence while performing duties, and this presumption is rebutted only by proof of the employer's observance of the diligence of a good father of a family in selection and supervision.