|
CRESENCIA
ACHEVARA, ALFREDO ACHEVARA, and BENIGNO Petitioners,
-
versus - ELVIRA RAMOS, JOHN ARNEL RAMOS, and KHRISTINE CAMILLE RAMOS, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 175172 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR.
NACHURA,
and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: September 29, 2009 |
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
This
is a petition for review on certiorari[1]
of the Decision dated
The
facts are as follows:
On
June 27, 1995, respondents Elvira Ramos
and her two minor children, namely, John Arnel Ramos and Khristine Camille
Ramos, filed with the RTC of Ilocos Sur a
Complaint[2]
for damages under Article 2176[3]
of the Civil Code against petitioners Cresencia Achevara, Alfredo Achevara and
Benigno Valdez for the death of Arnulfo Ramos, husband of Elvira Ramos and
father of her two children, in a vehicular accident that happened on April 22,
1995 at the national highway along Barangay Tablac, Candon, Ilocos
Sur. Crescencia Achevara was sued as the
operator of the passenger jeep with Plate No. DKK-995, which was involved in
the vehicular accident. Alfredo Achevara was impleaded as the husband of the
operator and as the administrator of the conjugal partnership properties of the
Spouses Achevara.
In their Complaint,[4] respondents alleged that in
the morning of P33,513.00 and funeral expenses in the sum of
P30,000.00, as well as moral and exemplary damages, lost earnings, attorney's
fees and litigation expenses.
In
their Answer,[5]
petitioners denied respondents’ allegation that Benigno Valdez overtook a
motorcycle and bumped the vehicle driven by Arnulfo Ramos. They alleged that on
April 22, 1995, Benigno Valdez was driving southward at a moderate speed when
he saw an owner-type jeep coming from the south
and heading north, running in a zigzag manner, and encroaching on the
west lane of the road. To avoid a
collision,
During trial on the merits, respondents presented
three witnesses: Alfredo Gamera, Dr. Emilio Joven and Elvira Ramos.
Alfredo
Gamera testified that at about
Gamera
testified that he was about 100 meters from the place where the vehicular
accident occurred. The speed of the
passenger jeep was about 70 kilometers per hour, while that of the owner-type jeep
was about 30 kilometers per hour.[7]
On cross-examination, it was found that Gamera
went to the Police Station in Candon, Ilocos Sur to execute his sworn statement
only on
Dr.
Emilio Joven, a surgeon of the
Respondent
Elvira Ramos testified on the damages she incurred due to the vehicular accident,
which resulted in the death of her husband. She spent P33,513.00 for
hospitalization and P30,000.00 for the funeral. She prayed for the award of lost earnings,
moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, appearance fees and other
costs of litigation.[11]
She
also testified that the owner-type jeep was registered in the name of Matilde
Tacad[12]
of Sto. Domingo, Ilocos
Petitioners
presented six witnesses, namely, PO3 Baltazar de Peralta, Special Police
Officer 2 (SPO2) Marvin Valdez, Herminigildo Pagaduan, Benigno Valdez, Emilia
Achevara and Alfredo Achevara.
PO3
Baltazar de Peralta stated that he was assigned to
When
the passenger jeep was about 75 meters away from him on the western lane of the
national highway, PO3 De Peralta spotted an owner-type jeep coming from the
south on the eastern lane of the road.
He observed that the owner-type jeep was running in a zigzag manner as
it went over the many holes on the road. It did not slacken speed, causing the
jeep’s front wheels to wiggle, before it bumped the passenger jeep coming from
the north. The collision occurred on the
lane of the passenger jeep, about two feet away from the center line of the
road, causing the owner-type jeep to turn around and return to its former
position, with its right wheel removed; while the passenger jeep veered to the
right lane.[14]
After the collision, PO3 De Peralta
assisted the owner-type jeep’s driver, who fell to the ground, and helped load him
into a tricycle that would take him to
the hospital. Then he went to the driver of the passenger jeep and asked him
what happened. The driver remarked,
“Even if you do not like to meet an accident, if that is what happened, you
cannot do anything.” Thereafter, PO3 De
Peralta proceeded on his way southward.
He reported the incident at the Police Station of Candon, Ilocos
PO3 De Peralta testified that the
accident happened on a straight part of the highway, but there were many holes
on the eastern lane. He stated that
nothing impeded his view of the incident.[16]
PO3 De Peralta also testified that he had
known respondents’ witness, Alfredo Gamera, who was his barangay mate
for 20 years. He declared that he never
saw Gamera at the waiting shed or at the scene of the incident on the morning
of
Investigator SPO2 Marvin Valdez of the
Candon Police Station testified that at about
SPO2 Valdez testified that the
owner-type jeep’s right tire was detached, and its left front portion was
damaged, while the passenger jeep’s left tire was detached, and its left side
portion was damaged.[19]
Herminigildo Pagaduan
testified that at
Pagaduan further
testified that the group headed west to Tamorong via Darapidap. When they reached a bridge, Barangay
Captain Gacusan tried to increase the speed of the jeep, but it suddenly wiggled. Gacusan stopped the jeep, and they all
alighted from it. Gacusan told Arnulfo
Ramos to have the mechanical defect repaired at the auto shop. Hence, they did not proceed to Tamorong, but
returned to the house of Gacusan by tricycle.
The next day, he heard from Gacusan that the jeep they had used in their
aborted trip to Tamorong met an
accident.[21]
On cross-examination,
Pagaduan testified that it was defense counsel Atty. Tudayan who requested him
to testify, because Atty. Tudayan had heard him discuss the incident with some jueteng
employees.[22]
Petitioner Benigno
Valdez testified that on
Petitioner
Alfredo Achevara testified that Crescencia Achevara was his wife, while Benigno
Valdez was the nephew of his wife. He
and his wife owned the passenger jeep with Plate No. DKK-995 that was involved
in the vehicular accident.
Alfredo Achevara declared that before they
employed Benigno Valdez to drive the passenger jeep, the former exercised the
diligence of a good father of a family in selecting, training and supervising the
latter.[27]
They required
Achevara stated that he knew Benigno Valdez since 1988. As their driver since 1992,
On February 14, 2000, the RTC of
Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, Branch 22, rendered a
Decision in Civil Case No. 1431-N in favor of respondents.
The trial court found that the testimony of respondents’ witness,
Alfredo Gamera, was controverted by the testimony of PO3 Baltazar de Peralta
and the finding of police investigator SPO2 Marvin Valdez. Gamera testified
that the vehicular accident occurred because the passenger jeep tried to
overtake the motorcycle driven by PO3 Baltazar de Peralta and encroached on the lane of the owner-type jeep
driven by Arnulfo Ramos. Gamera’s
testimony was, however, refuted by PO3
Baltazar de Peralta, who testified that
the passenger jeep did not overtake his motorcycle since he was the one following behind the passenger jeep. Hence, the trial court concluded that the
passenger jeep did not encroach on the lane of the owner-type jeep on the left
side of the road to allegedly overtake the motorcycle.
Moreover, Gamera testified that the collision occurred on the lane of
the owner-type jeep, and one of the
wheels of the owner-type jeep was detached, so that it stayed immobile at the
place of collision, about two meters east from
the center line of the national highway.
However, SPO2 Marvin Valdez, who investigated the incident, found both
vehicles on the western lane of the national highway. Thus, the trial court stated that it was
undeniable that the collision took place on the western lane of the national
highway, which was the passenger jeep’s lane.
The trial court held
that, as contended by respondents, the doctrine of last clear chance was
applicable to this case. It cited Picart v. Smith,[29]
which applied the said doctrine, thus, where both parties are guilty of
negligence, but the negligent act of one succeeds that of the other by an
appreciable interval of time, the person who has the last fair chance to avoid
the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences,
without reference to the prior negligence of the other party.
The trial court held that the driver of the passenger jeep, Benigno
Valdez, having seen the risk exhibited
by the wiggling of the front wheels of the owner-type jeep, causing it to run in a zigzag manner, should have parked his vehicle on the right shoulder of
the road so that the mishap could have been prevented. Since he ignored to take this reasonable
precaution, the omission and/or breach of this duty on his part was the
constitutive legal cause of the mishap.[30]
The trial court stated
that the doctrine of last clear chance, as applied to this case, implied a
contributory negligence on the part of the late Arnulfo Ramos, who knew of the
mechanical defect of his vehicle.
Further, the trial
court held that the evidence of the Spouses Achevara failed to show that they
exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of
Benigno Valdez as driver of their
passenger jeep.[31]
The dispositive portion
of the trial court’s Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, a decision is hereby rendered in favor
of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, the latter to account for and to
pay jointly and solidarily to the plaintiffs, because of the contributory
negligence on the part of the late Arnulfo Ramos, the reduced amount itemized
as follows to wit:
1) Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) - part of
the total receipted expenses at the hospitals;
2) Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) - for
funeral expenses;
3) Sixty Thousand Pesos (P60,000.00) - for
moral damages;
4) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) - for
exemplary damages;
5) Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) - for
attorney's fees, and
6) Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) - for actual
and other costs of litigation.[32]
The Spouses Achevara
and Benigno Valdez appealed the trial court’s Decision to the Court of Appeals.
In a Decision dated
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed February 14, 2000 Decision of the RTC
of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, Branch 22, in Civil Case No. 1431-N, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, that in addition to other awards made by the
trial court, defendants-appellants are hereby ordered to pay,
jointly and severally, the plaintiffs-appellees the sum of P50,000.00
as indemnity for the death of Arnulfo Ramos and the moral damages and
attorney's fees awarded by the trial court are hereby REDUCED to P50,000.00 and P10,000.00, respectively, while the awards made by the
trial court for exemplary damages and
“for actual and other costs of litigation” are hereby DELETED.[33]
The motion for reconsideration of the Spouses
Achevara and Benigno Valdez was denied for lack of merit by the Court of
Appeals in a Resolution[34] dated
Hence, the Spouses Achevara and Benigno Valdez
filed this petition.
The main issue is whether or not
petitioners are liable to respondents for damages incurred as a result of the
vehicular accident.
Petitioners
contend that the doctrine of last clear chance is not applicable to this case, because
the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the late Arnulfo
Ramos in knowingly driving the defective owner-type jeep. When the front wheel
of the owner-type jeep was removed, the said jeep suddenly encroached on the western
lane and bumped the left side of the passenger jeep driven by Benigno Valdez. Considering that the interval between the
time the owner-type jeep encroached on the lane of
Petitioners assert that Arnulfo Ramos’
negligence in driving the owner-type jeep − despite knowledge of its
mechanical defect, and his failure to have it repaired first before driving, to
prevent damage to life and property − did not only constitute contributory
negligence. Ramos’ negligence was the
immediate and proximate cause of the accident, which resulted in his untimely
demise. Benigno Valdez should not be
made to suffer the unlawful and negligent acts of Ramos. Since forseeability is the fundamental basis
of negligence,
In short, petitioners contend
that Arnulfo Ramos’ own negligence in knowingly driving a mechanically
defective vehicle was the immediate and proximate cause of his death, and that the
doctrine of last clear chance does not apply to this case.
Petitioners’ arguments are meritorious.
The Court
notes that respondents’ version of the vehicular accident was rebutted by
petitioners. The testimony of respondents’ witness, Alfredo
Gamera, that the vehicular accident occurred because the passenger jeep driven by Benigno Valdez tried to overtake the motorcycle driven by
PO3 Baltazar de Peralta and encroached
on the lane of the owner-type jeep, which resulted in the collision, was refuted by
PO3 Baltazar de Peralta, who
testified that the passenger jeep did not overtake his motorcycle since he was the one following behind the passenger jeep. Hence, the trial
court correctly concluded that the passenger jeep did not encroach on the lane
of the owner-type jeep on the left side of the road to allegedly overtake the
motorcycle.
Gamera also
testified that the collision took place on the lane of the
owner-type jeep, and one of its wheels was detached and stayed immobile at the place of collision,
about two meters east the center line of the national highway. However, SPO2 Marvin Valdez,
who investigated the incident, found both vehicles on the western lane
of the national highway. The owner-type
jeep was diagonally positioned on the right, western lane; while the passenger
jeep was on the western shoulder of the road, diagonally facing southwest. The trial court, therefore, correctly held
that it was undeniable that the collision took place on the western lane of the
national highway or the lane of the passenger jeep driven by Benigno Valdez. It was the owner-type jeep driven by Arnulfo
Ramos that encroached on the lane of the passenger jeep.
It must be pointed out
that Herminigildo Pagaduan testified that in the early morning of
Foreseeability is the
fundamental test of negligence. To be negligent, a defendant must have acted or
failed to act in such a way that an ordinary reasonable man would have realized
that certain interests of certain persons were unreasonably subjected to a
general but definite class of risks.[36]
Seeing that the
owner-type jeep was wiggling and running fast in a zigzag manner as it
travelled on the opposite side of the highway, Benigno Valdez was made aware of
the danger ahead if he met the owner-type jeep on the road. Yet he failed to take precaution by
immediately veering to the rightmost portion of the road or by stopping
the passenger jeep at the right shoulder of the road and letting the owner-type
jeep pass before proceeding southward; hence, the collision occurred. The Court of Appeals correctly held that
Benigno Valdez was guilty of inexcusable negligence by neglecting to take such
precaution, which a reasonable and prudent man would ordinarily have done under
the circumstances and which proximately caused injury to another.
On the other hand, the
Court also finds Arnulfo Ramos guilty of
gross negligence for knowingly driving a defective jeep on the highway. An
ordinarily prudent man would know that he would be putting himself and other
vehicles he would encounter on the road at risk for driving a mechanically
defective vehicle. Under the
circumstances, a prudent man would have had the owner-type jeep repaired or would
have stopped using it until it was repaired.
Ramos was, therefore, grossly negligent in continuing to drive on the
highway the mechanically defective jeep, which later encroached on the opposite lane and bumped
the passenger jeep driven by Benigno Valdez.
Gross negligence is the absence of care or diligence as to amount to a
reckless disregard of the safety of persons or property.[37] It evinces a thoughtless disregard of
consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[38]
The acts of negligence
of Arnulfo Ramos and Benigno Valdez were contemporaneous when Ramos continued
to drive a wiggling vehicle on the highway despite knowledge of its mechanical
defect, while Valdez did not immediately veer to the rightmost side of the road
upon seeing the wiggling vehicle of Ramos − perhaps because it still kept
to its lane and Valdez did not know the extent of its mechanical defect. However, when the owner-type jeep encroached
on the lane of the passenger jeep,
The doctrine of last
clear chance applies to a situation where the plaintiff was guilty of prior or
antecedent negligence, but the defendant − who had the last fair chance
to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so − is made liable for all
the consequences of the accident, notwithstanding the prior negligence of the
plaintiff.[39] However, the doctrine does not apply where
the party charged is required to act instantaneously, and the injury cannot be
avoided by the application of all means at hand after the peril is or should
have been discovered.[40]
The doctrine of last
clear chance does not apply to this case, because even
if it can be said that it was Benigno
Valdez who had the last chance to avoid
the mishap when the owner-type jeep
encroached on the western lane of the passenger jeep, Valdez no longer had the
opportunity to avoid the collision. The Answer of petitioners stated that when the owner-type jeep
encroached on the lane of the passenger jeep, Benigno Valdez maneuvered his vehicle towards the western
shoulder of the road to avoid a collision, but the owner-type jeep driven by
Ramos continued to move to the western
lane and bumped the left side of the
passenger jeep. Thus, petitioners assert in their Petition
that considering that the time the owner-type jeep encroached on the lane of
Article 2179 of the Civil Code provides:
When the
plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury,
he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate
and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the
plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be
awarded.[41]
In
this case, both Arnulfo Ramos and Benigno Valdez failed to exercise reasonable
care and caution that an ordinarily prudent man would have taken to prevent the
vehicular accident. Since the gross negligence
of Arnulfo Ramos and the inexcusable negligence of Benigno Valdez were the
proximate cause of the vehicular accident, respondents cannot recover damages
pursuant to Article 2179 of the Civil Code.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 67027, dated April 25, 2006, and its Resolution dated October 23, 2006, are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
No
costs.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Third Division, Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article
VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify
that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Docketed as Civil Case No. 1431-N.
[3] Art.
2176. 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,
if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called
a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
[4] Records,
pp. 1-5.
[5]
[6] TSN,
[7]
[8] TSN,
[9] TSN,
[10] Death Certificate, records, p. 140.
[11] TSN,
[12] Exhibit “M,” records, p. 145.
[13] TSN,
[14] TSN,
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] TSN,
[19]
[20] TSN,
[21]
[22]
[23] TSN,
[24] TSN,
[25] TSN,
[26] TSN,
[27]
[28]
[29] 37 Phil. 809 (1918).
[30] Records, pp. 69-70.
[31]
[32]
[33] Rollo, pp. 36-37.
[34]
[35] G.R. Nos. 79050-51,
[36] Jarencio,
Jarencio on Torts and Damages, p. 138.
[37] National
Power Corporation v. Heirs of Noble Casionan, G.R. No. 165969,
[38]
[39] Pantranco
v. North Express, Inc., G.R. Nos. 79050-51,
[40] Id.,
citing Ong v. Metropolitan Water
District, 104 Phil. 397 (1958).
[41] Emphasis
supplied.