Cacho v. Manahan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case stems from a vehicular accident on June 30, 1999, along the national highway at Pogo, Alaminos, Pangasinan. Bismark Cacho was driving his Nissan Sentra when it collided with a Dagupan Bus traversing the opposite lane. The collision resulted in Cacho's death and injuries to his passengers. The petitioners, Cacho's wife and children, alleged that the bus swerved into Cacho's lane to avoid a pile of boulders negligently placed by R.M. De Vera Construction, which was undertaking road work. The bus driver and owner, Gerardo Manahan and Dagupan Bus Co., Inc., claimed Cacho was speeding and hit their stationary bus, while De Vera Construction asserted compliance with safety measures and blamed Cacho's recklessness. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Alaminos, Pangasinan, found Gerardo Manahan, Dagupan Bus Co., Inc., and Renato De Vera jointly and severally liable for damages, awarding over P4.3 million to the petitioners. The RTC determined that Manahan was negligent in driving the bus at high speed near a narrow bridge and had the last clear chance to avoid the collision. The RTC also found De Vera Construction negligent for placing boulders near the road. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision, dismissing the complaint. The CA concluded that Cacho was the one driving negligently, as the bus was stationary and had sufficient space for Cacho to pass safely. The CA also noted that De Vera did not appeal the RTC's decision. The Petition: The petitioners, Linda Cacho and her minor children, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. They argued that the CA erred in reversing the RTC's findings of fact and law. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case, noting the contradictory factual findings of the RTC and the CA. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the RTC, reinstating its decision and finding both Manahan and Dagupan Bus Co., Inc. negligent. The Court found that Manahan drove at excessive speed, occupied Cacho's lane, and failed to exercise extraordinary diligence as a common carrier. The Court also found Dagupan Bus negligent in its hiring and supervision of Manahan, citing his driving examination results and apprenticeship records. The Court reinstated the RTC's award of damages, with a modification to include legal interest.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's decision and finding the deceased driver solely negligent; and whether Gerardo Manahan was negligent, leading to the vehicular accident. Whether Dagupan Bus Co., Inc., and Renato De Vera are jointly and severally liable for damages arising from the vehicular accident due to their respective negligence in selection/supervision and placement of boulders.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals' decision, and reinstated the Regional Trial Court's decision with a modification regarding the interest on the monetary awards. Gerardo Manahan, Dagupan Bus Co., Inc., and Renato De Vera were ordered to pay interest on the monetary awards at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, computed from January 26, 2004.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of negligence of Manahan and the CA's error: The Supreme Court found merit in the petition and sided with the RTC's findings, reversing the CA's conclusion. The Court emphasized that the assessment of witness credibility by the trial court is accorded great weight. The testimony of Alvin Camba, a passenger on the bus, was given credence, establishing that the bus was traveling at a high speed (80-100 km/h) and swerved to the left before the collision. This contradicted the CA's finding that the bus was at a full stop. The Court noted that the position of Cacho's car after the collision, thrown about ninety (90) degrees counter-clockwise and resting perpendicular to the bus, was incompatible with the bus being stationary. Furthermore, photographic evidence showed the bus occupying a portion of Cacho's lane, leaving a smaller space for him to maneuver. The Court applied the test for negligence laid down in Picart v. Smith, concluding that Manahan failed to exercise the reasonable care and caution an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation, especially considering the narrow bridge and the time of day. The Court also invoked Article 2185 of the Civil Code, presuming negligence due to Manahan's likely violation of traffic regulations, specifically Section 35 of R.A. No. 4136 (Land Transportation and Traffic Code), which mandates driving at a careful and prudent speed and maintaining an assured clear distance. The CA's conclusion that Cacho was solely negligent was deemed speculative and contrary to the evidence. On the issue of liability of Dagupan Bus and De Vera: The Court found Dagupan Bus negligent in its selection and supervision of Manahan, citing his application form, slow reaction time during his driving examination, inability to recognize traffic signs, and the note that he was not fit to drive aircon buses or at night, despite which he was cleared for duty. The Court held that common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence not only for their passengers but also for other road users. Therefore, Dagupan Bus was found liable. The Court also noted that while De Vera did not appeal the RTC's finding of solidarity liability, the RTC had found him negligent for placing boulders near the bridge, which hampered traffic flow.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's decision, finding the bus driver and bus company liable for damages due to negligence, overturning the Court of Appeals' ruling that the deceased driver was solely negligent. The Court emphasized the importance of witness credibility, photographic evidence, and the driver's violation of traffic rules in determining negligence.