Gutierrez v. Gutierrez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On February 2, 1930, a passenger truck owned by Saturnino Cortez and driven by Abelardo Velasco collided with an automobile owned by Mr. and Mrs. Manuel Gutierrez and driven by their 18-year-old son, Bonifacio Gutierrez. The collision occurred on the Talon bridge on the Manila South Road. Narciso Gutierrez, a passenger in the truck, sustained a fractured right leg, requiring prolonged medical attendance and resulting in apparent permanent lameness. Procedural History: The plaintiff, Narciso Gutierrez, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the five defendants (Bonifacio Gutierrez, Maria V. de Gutierrez, Manuel Gutierrez, Abelardo Velasco, and Saturnino Cortez) to recover P10,000 in damages for physical injuries. The trial court rendered judgment as prayed for by the plaintiff, leading to appeals by both sets of defendants. The Petition: Both sets of defendants appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance, disputing the findings of fact and the extent of their respective liabilities.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendants were negligent and liable for the physical injuries sustained by the plaintiff. Whether the father, Manuel Gutierrez, is liable for the negligence of his son, Bonifacio Gutierrez. Whether the owner and chauffeur of the passenger truck, Saturnino Cortez and Abelardo Velasco, are liable for the accident. Whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. Whether the awarded damages were excessive.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the judgment, holding Manuel Gutierrez, Abelardo Velasco, and Saturnino Cortez jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for the sum of P5,000, plus costs. The Court found the original award of P10,000 to be excessive.
Ratio Decidendi
On the negligence of the defendants: The Court found that the collision was caused by negligence. It upheld the trial judge's findings on controversial questions of fact, stating that a majority of the Court believed these findings were sufficiently supported by the record. The Court noted the general scenario involved two drivers approaching a narrow bridge from opposite directions, neither willing to yield the right of way, leading to the collision. On the liability of Manuel Gutierrez: The Court explained that the youth Bonifacio was an incompetent chauffeur, driving at an excessive speed, and lost his head, contributing to the accident through his negligence. Pursuant to Article 1903 of the Civil Code, the father, Manuel Gutierrez, who provided the guaranty for his son's license, was held liable for the damages caused by the minor's acts, as the father alone, not the minor or the mother, would be liable. The Court also referenced the common law rule that the owner of an automobile, who maintains it for the general use of his family, is liable for its negligent operation by a child permitted to run it, when used for the family's pleasure, based on the theory of respondeat superior. On the liability of Saturnino Cortez and Abelardo Velasco: The liability of the owner and chauffeur of the passenger truck rested on a different basis, namely, that of contract, which was deemed sufficiently demonstrated by the uncontroverted allegations and evidence. The Court deferred to the trial court's findings concerning the truck's position on the bridge, its speed, and the chauffeur's lack of care, despite these facts being less clearly evidenced than those concerning the Gutierrez family. On contributory negligence: The Court dismissed the contention of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, stating that the defense was not pleaded. Furthermore, the evidence supporting the theory of the plaintiff keeping his foot outside the truck was found to be contradictory and speculative. On the award of damages: The Court found the original award of P10,000 to be excessive. Considering all facts, including actual expenditures and damages for the injury to the plaintiff's leg, which might cause permanent lameness, and in connection with other adjudications of the Court, a total sum of P5,000 was deemed fair and reasonable. The Court acknowledged the difficulty in approximating damages, noting the divergence of opinion among its members regarding the appropriate amount.
Main Doctrine
The owner of an automobile who maintains it for the general use of his family is liable for its negligent operation by one of his children whom he permits to run it, where the car is occupied and being used for the pleasure of other members of the owner's family. The father, who guaranteed his son's license, is liable for the damages caused by the minor's negligence pursuant to Article 1903 of the Civil Code.