1/29/2017

G.R.No.162987

FIRSTDIVISION

SOFIAM.GUILLANG,representedG.R.No.162987
bySUSANGUILLANGCABATBAT,
REYNALDO,GERARDO,
BIENVENIDO,DAWNA,andNELLIE,
allsurnamedGUILLANG,
GENAROGUILLANG,
JOSEDIGNADICE,and
ALVINLLANILLO,
Petitioners,
Present:

PUNO,C.J.,Chairperson,
versusCARPIO,
CORONA,
LEONARDODECASTRO,and
BERSAMIN,JJ.

RODOLFOBEDANIAPromulgated:
andRODOLFODESILVA,
Respondents.May21,2009
xx

DECISION

CARPIO,J.:
TheCase

[1]
[2]
This is a petition for review of the 3 June 2003 Decision and the 23 March 2004
[3]
Resolution oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.69289.The3June2003Decisionset
[4]
aside the 5 December 2000 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Manila (trial
court).The23March2004Resolutiondeniedthemotionforreconsideration.

TheFacts

On 25 October 1994, at about 5:45 in the afternoon, petitioner Genaro M. Guillang (Genaro)
wasdrivinghisbrandnewToyotaCorollaGLIsedanwithconductionstickerno.54DFT(car)
along Emilio Aguinaldo Highway (highway) in Cavite. Genaro, Antero Guillang (Antero),
Felipe Jurilla, Jose Dignadice (Dignadice), and Alvin Llanillo (Llanillo) had all just left from
Golden City, Dasmarias, Cavite, and were on their way to Manila. At the other side of the
highway,respondentRodolfoA.Bedania(Bedania)wasdrivingatenwheelerIsuzucargotruck
with plate no. CAC923 (truck) towards Tagaytay City. The truck was owned by respondent
RodolfodeSilva(deSilva).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/162987.htm

1/12

1/29/2017

G.R.No.162987

AlongthehighwayandtheroadleadingtotheOrchardGolfCourse,BedanianegotiatedaU
turn.Whenthetruckenteredtheoppositelaneofthehighway,Genaroscarhittherightportion
ofthetruck.ThetruckdraggedGenaroscarsomefivemeterstotherightoftheroad.

As a consequence, all the passengers of the car were rushed to the De La Salle University
MedicalCenterinDasmarias,Cavitefortreatment.Becauseofsevereinjuries,Anterowaslater
transferredtothePhilippineGeneralHospital.However,on3November1994,Anterodieddue
to the injuries he sustained from the collision. The car was a total wreck while the truck
sustainedminordamage.

[5]
On24April1995,petitionersGenaro,Llanillo,Dignadice,andtheheirsofAntero instituted
acomplaintfordamagesbasedonquasidelictagainstrespondentsBedaniaanddeSilva.

On5December2000,thetrialcourtrenderedadecisioninfavorofpetitioners.Thetrialcourt
foundBedaniagrosslynegligentforrecklesslymaneuveringthetruckbymakingasuddenU
turninthehighwaywithoutdueregardtotrafficrulesandthesafetyofothermotorists.Thetrial
court also declared de Silva grossly negligent in the selection and supervision of his driver,
Bedania.Thedispositiveportionofthedecisionprovides:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendants Rodolfo A. Bedania and

RodolfodeSilva,jointlyandseverally,topayplaintiffs,asfollows:

1. The sum of P508,566.03 representing the damage/repair costs of the Toyota to

plaintiffGenaroM.Guillang.

2. ThesumofP50,000.00forthedeathofAnteroGuillangplusP185,000.00forhis
burialexpenses,totheheirsofAnteroGuillang.

3.ForhospitalandmedicalexpensesasreflectedinExhibitsE,E1toE30toplaintiffs
GenaroM.Guillang,JoseDignadiceandAlvinLlanillo.

4. The sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages for the heirs of the deceased Antero
Guillang.

5. ThesumofP50,000.00asmoraldamageseachtoplaintiffsJoseDignadice,Alvin
LlanilloandGenaroGuillang.

6.ThesumofP50,000.00asexemplarydamages.

7.ThesumofP100,000.00asandforattorneysfess.

8.Thecostsofthesuit.

[6]
SOORDERED.

RespondentsappealedtotheCourtofAppeals.

On 3 June 2003, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision in favor of respondents. The
dispositiveportionofthedecisionprovides:

INVIEWOFALLTHEFOREGOING,theappealeddecisionisREVERSEDandSETASIDE.
The complaint of the herein appellees in Civil Case No. 9573666 is DISMISSED, for lack of
merit. The appellants counterclaims in the instant case are likewise DISMISSED. No
pronouncementastocost.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/162987.htm

2/12

1/29/2017

G.R.No.162987

[7]
SOORDERED.

Petitionersfiledamotionforreconsideration.On23March2004,theCourtofAppealsdenied
themotion.

Hence,thispetition.

TheRulingoftheRegionalTrialCourt

According to the trial court, there is a presumption that a person driving a motor vehicle has
[8]
been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. In this
[9]
case,thetrialcourtfoundthattheTrafficAccidentInvestigationReport(report), corroborated
by the testimonies of the witnesses, showed that the truck committed a traffic violation by
executing a Uturn without signal lights. The trial court also declared that Bedania violated
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
Sections 45(b),
48,
and 54
of Republic Act No. 4136
when he executed the
sudden Uturn. The trial court added that Bedania violated another traffic rule when he
[14]
abandonedthevictimsafterthecollision.
ThetrialcourtconcludedthatBedaniawasgrossly
negligentinhisdrivingandheldhimliablefordamages.

Moreover, the trial court found that Bedania did not make the Uturn at an intersection.
According to the trial court, vehicles trying to maneuver to change directions must seek an
intersectionwhereitissafertomaneuverandnotrecklesslymakeaUturninahighway. The
trial court said Bedania should have observed extreme caution in making a Uturn because it
wasunexpectedthatalongcargotruckwouldexecuteaUturnalongthehighway.

The trial court also said that Bedanias gross negligence raised the legal presumption that de
Silva,asBedaniasemployer,wasnegligentintheselectionandsupervisionofhisemployees.
[15]
[16]
The trial court said that, under Articles 2176
and 2180
of the Civil Code, de Silvas
liability was based on culpa aquiliana which holds the employer primarily liable for tortious
actsofhisemployees,subjecttothedefensethatheexercisedallthediligenceofagoodfather
ofafamilyintheselectionandsupervisionofhisemployees.ThetrialcourtruledthatdeSilva
failedtoprovethisdefenseand,consequently,heldhimliablefordamages.

TheRulingoftheCourtofAppeals

TheCourtofAppealsreversedthetrialcourtsdecisionandsaidthatthetrialcourtoverlooked
substantial facts and circumstances which, if properly considered, would justify a different
conclusionandaltertheresultsofthecase.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/162987.htm

3/12

1/29/2017

G.R.No.162987

The Court of Appeals dismissed the testimonies of the witnesses and declared that they were
contrarytohumanobservation,knowledgeandexperience.TheCourtofAppealsalsosaidthat
thefollowingwerethephysicalevidencesinthecase:

1.Itwasnotyetdarkwhentheincidenttranspired

2.Thefourlanehighwaytheappelleeswerecruisingonwaswide,straight,dry,relatively
plainandwithnoobstructionstothedriversvision

3.Thepointofimpactofthecollisionisonthelanewherethecarwascruisingandthecar
hitthegastankofthetrucklocatedatitsrightmiddleportion,whichindicatesthatthetruckhad
already properly positioned itself and had already executed the Uturn before the impact
occurred

4.GenaroGuillangwasnotabletostopthecarintimeandthecarsfrontportionwastotally
wrecked.Thisnegatesappelleescontentionthattheyweretravelingatamoderatespeedand

5.ThesheersizeofthetruckmakesitimprobableforthesaidvehicletonegotiateaUturn
[17]
atasuddenandfastspeedasappelleesvigorouslysuggestwithouttopplingoveronitsside.
(Citationsomitted)

TheCourtofAppealsconcludedthatthecollisionwascausedbyGenarosnegligence.TheCourt
of Appeals declared that the truck arrived at the intersection way ahead of the car and had
alreadyexecutedtheUturnwhenthecar,travelingatafastspeed,hitthetrucksside.TheCourt
ofAppealsaddedthatconsideringthetimeandthefavorablevisibilityoftheroadandtheroad
conditions, Genaro, if he was alert, had ample time to react to the changing conditions of the
road. The Court of Appeals found no reason for Genaro not to be prudent because he was
approachinganintersectionandtherewasagreatpossibilitythatvehicleswouldbetraversing
theintersectioneithergoingtoorfromOrchardGolfCourse.TheCourtofAppealssaidGenaro
shouldhavesloweddownuponreachingtheintersection.TheCourtofAppealsconcludedthat
GenarosfailuretoobservethenecessaryprecautionswastheproximatecauseofAnterosdeath
andtheinjuriesofthepetitioners.

TheCourtofAppealsalsoreliedonthetestimonyofPoliceTrafficInvestigatorEfrenVidena
(Videna) that the car was running at a fast speed and overtook another vehicle just before the
[18]
collisionoccurred.
TheCourtofAppealsconcludedthatGenarodidnotseethetruckasthe
othervehicletemporarilyblockedhisviewoftheintersection.TheCourtofAppealsalsogave
weighttoVidenastestimonythatitwasnormalforatenwheelertrucktomakeaUturnonthat
[19]
partofthehighwaybecausetheentrancetoOrchardGolfCoursewasspacious.

TheIssues

Petitionersraisethefollowingissues:

1.DidtheCourtofAppealsdecideaquestionofsubstanceinthiscaseinaway
probablynotinaccordwithlaworwiththeapplicabledecisionsoftheHonorable
SupremeCourt?
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/162987.htm

4/12

1/29/2017

G.R.No.162987

2. DidtheCourtofAppealsdepartfromtheacceptedandusual course of
judicialproceedingsparticularlywhenitrevised,andrecastthefindingsoffactsof
thetrialcourtpertainingtocredibilityofwitnessesofwhichthetrialcourtwasat
thevantagepointtoevaluate?

3. DidtheCourtofAppealsactwithgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingto
lack of jurisdiction when it rendered the palpably questionable Court of Appeals
Decisionthattamperedwiththefindingsoffactofthetrialcourtfornojustifiable
reason?

4.IstheCourtofAppealsjudgmentandresolutionreversingthedecisionofthe
[20]
trialcourtsupportedbytheevidenceandthelawandjurisprudenceapplicable?

The issue in this case is who is liable for the damages suffered by petitioners. The trial court
held Bedania and de Silva, as Bedanias employer, liable because the proximate cause of the
collision was the sudden Uturn executed by Bedania without any signal lights. On the other
hand,theCourtofAppealsreversedthetrialcourtsdecisionandheldGenaroliablebecausethe
proximatecauseofthecollisionwasGenarosfailuretostopthecardespiteseeingthatBedania
wasmakingaUturn.

TheRulingoftheCourt

TheprincipleiswellestablishedthatthisCourtisnotatrieroffacts.Therefore,inanappealby
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised. The
resolutionoffactualissuesisthefunctionofthelowercourtswhosefindingsonthesematters
[21]
arereceivedwithrespectandare,asarule,bindingonthisCourt.

However, this rule is subject to certain exceptions. One of these is when the findings of the
[22]
appellatecourtarecontrarytothoseofthetrialcourt.
Findingsoffactofthetrialcourtand
the Court of Appeals may also be set aside when such findings are not supported by the
[23]
evidence or where the lower courts conclusions are based on a misapprehension of facts.
Such is the situation in this case and we shall reexamine the facts and evidence presented
beforethelowercourts.

Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides that whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence,ifthereisnopreexistingcontractualrelationsbetweentheparties,iscalledaquasi
delict. To sustain a claim based on quasidelict, the following requisites must concur: (a)
damage suffered by the plaintiff (b) fault or negligence of defendant and (c) connection of
causeandeffectbetweenthefaultornegligenceofdefendantandthedamageincurredbythe
[24]
plaintiff.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/162987.htm

5/12

1/29/2017

G.R.No.162987

There is no dispute that petitioners suffered damages because of the collision. However, the
issuesonnegligenceandproximatecausearedisputed.

OnthePresumptionofNegligenceandProximateCause

Negligenceisdefinedasthefailuretoobservefortheprotectionoftheinterestofanotherperson
thatdegreeofcare,precaution,andvigilancewhichthecircumstancesjustlydemand,whereby
[25]
such other person suffers injury. In Picart v. Smith,
we held that the test of negligence is
whetherthedefendantindoingtheallegednegligentactusedthatreasonablecareandcaution
whichanordinarypersonwouldhaveusedinthesamesituation.

The conclusion of the Court of Appeals that Genaro was negligent is not supported by the
evidenceonrecord.InrulingthatGenarowasnegligent,theCourtofAppealsgaveweightand
credencetoVidenastestimony.However,wefindthatVidenastestimonywasinconsistentwith
thepolicerecordsandreportthathemadeonthedayofthecollision.First,Videnatestifiedthat
[26]
the car was running fast and overtook another vehicle that already gave way to the truck.
But this was not indicated in either the report or the police records. Moreover, if the car was
speeding,thereshouldhavebeenskidmarksontheroadwhenGenarosteppedonthebrakesto
[27]
avoidthecollision.Butthesketchoftheaccidentshowednoskidmarksmadebythecar.
Second,Videnatestifiedthatthepetitionerscamefromadrinkingspreebecausehewasableto
[28]
[29]
smell liquor.
But in the report,
Videna indicated that the condition of Genaro was
normal. Videna did not indicate in the report that Genaro had been drinking liquor or that
Genarowasobviouslydrunk.Third,Videnatestifiedthatwhenhearrivedatthescene,Bedania
[30]
wasinsidehistruck.
ThiscontradictsthepolicerecordswhereVidenastatedthatafterthe
[31]
collisionBedaniaescapedandabandonedthevictims.
Thepolicerecordsalsoshowedthat
BedaniawasarrestedbythepoliceathisbarracksinAnabu,Imus,Caviteandwasturnedover
[32]
tothepoliceonlyon26October1994.

UnderArticle2185oftheCivilCode,unlessthereisprooftothecontrary,apersondrivinga
vehicle is presumed negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic
regulation.

[33]
Inthiscase,thereport
showed that the truck, while making the Uturn, failed to signal, a
violationoftrafficrules.Thepolicerecordsalsostatedthat,afterthecollision,Bedaniaescaped
[34]
andabandonedthepetitionersandhistruck.
Thisisanotherviolationofatrafficregulation.
[35]
Therefore,thepresumptionarisesthatBedaniawasnegligentatthetimeofthemishap.
TheevidencepresentedinthiscasealsodoesnotsupporttheconclusionoftheCourtofAppeals
thatthetruckhadalreadyexecutedtheUturnbeforetheimpactoccurred.Ifthetruckhadfully
[36]
madetheUturn,itshouldhavebeenhitonitsrear.
Ifthetruckhadalreadynegotiatedeven
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/162987.htm

6/12

1/29/2017

G.R.No.162987

halfoftheturnandisalmostontheothersideofthehighway,thenthetruckshouldhavebeen
hit in the middle portion of the trailer or cargo compartment. But the evidence clearly shows,
andtheCourtofAppealsevendeclared,thatthecarhitthetrucksgastank,locatedatthetrucks
rightmiddleportion,whichdisprovestheconclusionoftheCourtofAppealsthatthetruckhad
alreadyexecutedtheUturnwhenitwashitbythecar.

Moreover,theCourtofAppealssaidthatthepointofimpactwasonthelanewherethecarwas
cruising.Therefore,thecarhadeveryrighttobeonthatroadandthecarhadtherightofway
overthetruckthatwasmakingaUturn.Clearly,thetruckencroacheduponthecarslanewhen
itsuddenlymadetheUturn.

The Court of Appeals also concluded that Bedania made the Uturn at an intersection. Again,
[37]
this is not supported by the evidence on record. The police sketch
does not indicate an
intersectionandonlyshowsthattherewasaroadleadingtotheOrchardGolfCoursenearthe
place of the collision. Furthermore, Uturns are generally not advisable particularly on major
[38]
streets.
Contrary to Videnas testimony, it is not normal for a truck to make a Uturn on a
highway. We agree with the trial court that if Bedania wanted to change direction, he should
seekanintersectionwhereitissafertomaneuverthetruck.Bedaniashouldhavealsoturnedon
his signal lights and made sure that the highway was clear of vehicles from the opposite
directionbeforeexecutingtheUturn.

ThefindingoftheCourtofAppealsthatitwasnotyetdarkwhenthecollisionoccurredisalso
notsupportedbytheevidenceonrecord.Thereportstatedthatthedaylightconditionatthetime
[39]
ofthecollisionwasdarkness.

ContrarytotheconclusionoftheCourtofAppeals,thesheersizeofthetruckdoesnotmakeit
improbableforthetrucktoexecuteasuddenUturn.Thetrialcourtsdecisiondidnotstatethat
thetruckwastravelingatafastspeedwhenitmadetheUturn. The trial court said the truck
made a sudden Uturn, meaning the Uturn was made unexpectedly and with no warning, as
shownbythefactthatthetruckssignallightswerenotturnedon.

Clearly,Bedaniasnegligencewastheproximatecauseofthecollisionwhichclaimedthelifeof
Anteroandinjuredthepetitioners.Proximatecauseisthatwhich,inthenaturalandcontinuous
sequence,unbrokenbyanyefficient,interveningcause,producestheinjury,andwithoutwhich
[40]
theresultwouldnothaveoccurred.
Thecauseofthecollisionistraceabletothenegligent
act of Bedania for if the Uturn was executed with the proper precaution, the mishap in all
probability would not have happened. The sudden Uturn of the truck without signal lights
posedaseriousrisktooncomingmotorists.Bedaniafailedtopreventorminimizethatrisk.The
truckssuddenUturntriggeredaseriesofeventsthatledtothecollisionand,ultimately,tothe
deathofAnteroandtheinjuriesofpetitioners.

WeagreewiththetrialcourtthatdeSilva,asBedaniasemployer,isalsoliableforthedamages
suffered by petitioners. De Silva failed to prove that he exercised all the diligence of a good
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/162987.htm

7/12

1/29/2017

G.R.No.162987

fatherofafamilyintheselectionandsupervisionofhisemployees.

OntheAwardofDamagesandAttorneysFees

According to prevailing jurisprudence, civil indemnity for death caused by a quasidelict is

[41]
peggedatP50,000.
MoraldamagesintheamountofP50,000isalsoawardedtotheheirsof
[42]
the deceased taking into consideration the pain and anguish they suffered.
Bienvenido
Guillang(Bienvenido),Anterosson,testifiedthatSofia,Anteroswifeandhismother,became
[43]
depressedafterAnterosdeathandthatSofiadiedayearafter.
Bienvenidoalsotestifiedon
[44]
the pain and anguish their family suffered as a consequence of their fathers death.
We
sustainthetrialcourtsawardofP50,000asindemnityfordeathandP50,000asmoraldamages
totheheirsofAntero.

As to funeral and burial expenses, the court can only award such amount as are supported by
[45]
proper receipts.
In this case, petitioners proved funeral and burial expenses of P55,000 as
[46]
[47]
evidenced by Receipt No. 1082,
P65,000 as evidenced by Receipt No. 1146
and
[48]
P15,000 as evidenced by Receipt No. 1064,
all issued by the Manila South Cemetery
Association,Inc.,aggregatingP135,000.Wereducethetrialcourtsawardoffuneralandburial
expensesfromP185,000toP135,000.

Astohospitalizationexpenses,onlysubstantiatedandprovenexpenses,orthosethatappearto
have been genuinely incurred in connection with the hospitalization of the victims will be
[49]
recognizedincourt.
Inthiscase,thetrialcourtdidnotspecifytheamountofhospitalization
expensestobeawardedtothepetitioners.Sincepetitionerspresentedreceiptsforhospitalization
expensesduringthetrial,wewilldeterminetheproperamountstobeawardedtoeachofthem.
[50]
We award hospitalization expenses of P27,000.98 to the heirs of Antero,
P10,881.60 to
[51]
[52]
[53]
Llanillo,
P5,436.77 to Dignadice,
and P300 to Genaro
because these are the
amountsdulysubstantiatedbyreceipts.

WeaffirmthetrialcourtsawardofP508,566.03fortherepairofthecar.The Court notes that

there is no dispute that Genaro was driving a brand new Toyota Corolla GLI sedan and that,
afterthecollision,thecarwasatotalwreck.Inthiscase,therepairorderpresentedbyGenarois
[54]
sufficientproofofthedamagessustainedbythecar.

[55]
Moral damages may be recovered in quasidelicts causing physical injuries.
However, in
accordancewithprevailingjurisprudence,wereducetheawardofmoraldamagesfromP50,000

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/162987.htm

8/12

1/29/2017

G.R.No.162987

to P30,000 each to Llanillo, Dignadice, and Genaro since they only suffered physical injuries
[56]
broughtaboutbythecollision.

In quasidelicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross
[57]
negligence.
Whiletheamountofexemplarydamagesneednotbeproved,theplaintiffmust
show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may
[58]
considerthequestionofwhetherornotexemplarydamagesshouldbeawarded.
Inthiscase,
Bedania was grossly negligent in suddenly making a Uturn in the highway without signal
lights.Toserveasanexampleforthepublicgood,weaffirmthetrialcourtsawardofexemplary
damagesintheamountofP50,000.

Finally, we affirm the trial courts award of attorneys fees in the amount of P100,000. Under
Article2208oftheCivilCode,attorneysfeesmayberecoveredwhen,asinthiscase,exemplary
damagesareawarded.

WHEREFORE, we REVERSE the 3 June 2003 Decision and 23 March 2004 Resolution of
theCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.69289.We REINSTATE with MODIFICATIONS
the 5 December 2000 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Manila. We ORDER
RodolfoBedaniaandRodolfodeSilva,jointlyandseverally,topaythefollowingamounts:

1.FuneralandBurialExpensesofP135,000totheheirsofAnteroGuillang
2.HospitalizationExpensesofP27,000.98totheheirsofAnteroGuillang,P10,881.60
toAlvinLlanillo,P5,436.77toJoseDignadice,andP300toGenaroGuillangand
3. Moral damages of P30,000 each to Alvin Llanillo, Jose Dignadice, and Genaro
Guillang.
SOORDERED.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
Chairperson

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/162987.htm

9/12

1/29/2017

G.R.No.162987

RENATOC.CORONATERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the
aboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
UnderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.
[2]
Rollo,pp.6372.PennedbyAssociateJusticeConradoM.Vasquez,Jr.(nowPresidingJustice),withAssociateJusticesMercedes
GozoDadoleandDaniloB.Pine,concurring.
[3]
Id.at7475.
[4]
Id.at7684.PennedbyJudgeSenecioO.Ortile.
[5]
SofiaGuillang,wifeofAntero,wastheonewhofiledthecasebeforethetrialcourt.However,Sofiadiedandwaslaterrepresented
bytheirchildren,SusanGuillangCabatbat,Reynaldo,Gerardo,Bienvenido,Dawna,andNellie,allsurnamedGuillang.
[6]
Rollo,p.84.
[7]
Id.at72.
[8]
CIVILCODE,Art.2185.
[9]
ExhibitA,records,p.280.
[10]
Section45ofRepublicActNo.4136provides:
Sec.45.Turningatintersections.xxx
(b)Thedriverofavehicleintendingtoturntotheleftshallapproachsuchintersectioninthelanefortraffictotherightofandnearest
tothecenterlineofthehighway,and,inturning,shallpasstotheleftofthecenteroftheintersection,exceptthat,uponhighways
lanedfortrafficandupononewayhighways,aleftturnshallbemadefromtheleftlaneoftrafficinthedirectioninwhichthevehicle
isproceeding.
[11]
Section48ofRepublicActNo.4136provides:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/162987.htm

10/12

1/29/2017

G.R.No.162987

Sec.48.Recklessdriving.Nopersonshalloperateamotorvehicleonanyhighwayrecklesslyorwithoutreasonablecaution
consideringthewidth,traffic,grades,crossing,curvatures,visibilityandotherconditionsofthehighwayandtheconditions
oftheatmosphereandweather,orsoastoendangerthepropertyorsafetyorrightsofanypersonorsoastocauseexcessive
orunreasonabledamagetothehighway.
[12]
Section54ofRepublicActNo.4136provides:
Sec.54.Obstructionoftraffic.Nopersonshalldrivehismotorvehicleinsuchamannerastoobstructorimpedethepassage
ofanyvehicle,nor,whiledischargingortakingonpassengersorloadingorunloadingfreight,obstructthefreepassageof
othervehiclesonthehighway.
[13]
AnActtoCompiletheLawsRelativetoLandTransportationandTrafficRules,toCreateaLandTransportationCommission
andforOtherPurposesapprovedon20June1964.AlsoknownastheLandTransportationandTrafficCode.
[14]
Section55ofRepublicActNo.4136provides:
Sec.55.Dutyofdriverincaseofaccident.Intheeventthatanyaccidentshouldoccurasaresultoftheoperationofamotor
vehicleuponahighway,thedrivershallstopimmediately,and,ifrequestedbyanypersonpresent,shallshowhisdrivers
license,givehistruenameandaddressandalsothetruenameandaddressoftheownerofthemotorvehicle.
Nodriverofamotorvehicleconcernedinavehicularaccidentshallleavethesceneoftheaccidentwithoutaidingthevictim,except
underanyofthefollowingcircumstances:
1.Ifheisinimminentdangerofbeingseriouslyharmedbyanypersonorpersonsbyreasonoftheaccident
2.Ifhereportstheaccidenttothenearestofficerofthelawor
3.Ifhehastosummonaphysicianornursetoaidthevictim.
[15]
Article2176oftheCivilCodeprovides:
Whoeverbyactoromissioncausesdamagetoanother,therebeingfaultornegligence,isobligedtopayforthedamagedone.Such
faultornegligence,ifthereisnopreexistingcontractualrelationsbetweentheparties,iscalledaquasidelictandisgovernedbythe
provisionsofthisChapter.
[16]
Article2180oftheCivilCodeprovides:
TheobligationimposedbyArticle2176isdemandablenotonlyforonesownactsoromissions,butalsoforthoseofpersonsfor
whomoneisresponsible.
xxxx
Employersshallbeliableforthedamagescausedbytheiremployeesandhouseholdhelpactingwithinthescopeoftheirassigned
tasks,eventhoughtheformerarenotengagedinanybusinessorindustry.
xxxx
Theresponsibilitytreatedofinthisarticleshallceasewhenthepersonshereinmentionedprovethattheyobservedallthediligence
ofagoodfatherofafamilytopreventthedamage.
[17]
Rollo,pp.6768.
[18]
TSN,13December1999,pp.1213.
[19]
Id.at18.
[20]
Rollo,pp.1011.
[21]
McKeev.IntermediateAppellateCourt,G.R.Nos.6810203,16July1992,211SCRA517.
[22]
PhilippineRabbitBusLines,Inc.v.IntermediateAppellateCourt,G.R.Nos.6610204,30August1990,189SCRA158.
[23]
McKeev.IntermediateAppellateCourt,supra.
[24]
DyTebanTrading,Inc.v.Ching,G.R.No.161803,4February2008,543SCRA560.
[25]
37Phil.809(1918).
[26]
TSN,13December1999,pp.1113.
[27]
ExhibitI,records,p.345.
[28]
TSN,13December1999,p.20.
[29]
ExhibitA,records,p.281.
[30]
TSN,13December1999,p.13.
[31]
ExhibitA2,records,p.282.
[32]
ExhibitA3,id.at283.
[33]
ExhibitA,id.at280.
[34]
ExhibitA2,id.at282.
[35]
Section55ofRepublicActNo.4136.
[36]
ThermochemIncorporatedv.Naval,397Phil.934(2000).
[37]
ExhibitI,records,p.345.
[38]
ThermochemIncorporatedv.Naval,supra.
[39]
ExhibitA,records,p.280.
[40]
Lambertv.HeirsofCastillon,G.R.No.160709,23February2005,452SCRA285.
[41]
Id.Pestaov.SpousesSumayang,400Phil.740(2000).
[42]
Lambertv.HeirsofCastillon,supranote40Peoplev.Hapa,413Phil.679(2001).
[43]
TSN,30March1998,p.3.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/162987.htm

11/12

1/29/2017

G.R.No.162987

[44]
Id.
[45]
Peoplev.Sumalinog,Jr.,466Phil.637(2004).
[46]
ExhibitF,records,p.342.
[47]
ExhibitF1,id.
[48]
ExhibitF2,id.
[49]
Peoplev.Manlapaz,375Phil.930(1999).
[50]
ExhibitsE33,E63,E70,andE71,records,pp.300,312and316.
[51]
ExhibitsE73,E74,andE75,id.at318319.
[52]
ExhibitsE76,E104,andE107,id.at319,331and333.
[53]
ExhibitE27andE29,id.at297298.
[54]
ExhibitsKtoK3,id.at347350.
[55]
CIVILCODE,Article2219.
[56]
B.F.MetalCorporationv.SpousesLomotan,G.R.No.170813,16April2008,551SCRA618citingPeoplev.Tambis,370Phil.
459(1999).
[57]
CIVILCODE,Article2232.
[58]
CIVILCODE,Article2334.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/may2009/162987.htm

12/12