ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 164946. April 4, 2005]

PHILHAWK TRANSPORT vs. CA

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 4 2005.

G.R. No. 164946 (Philhawk Transport Corporation and Alvin Ausa vs. Court of Appeals and Gemma Diaz Sulit.)

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the April 29, 2004 decision [1] cralaw and August 19, 2004 resolution [2] cralaw of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 74515 which in turn affirmed the February 22, 2002 decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 221, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-97-30282.

On February 18, 1997, private respondent filed a complaint for damages against petitioners for breach of contract of carriage. Private respondent is the widow of the late Felipe Sulit, Jr. who died in a vehicular accident on January 8, 1997. She alleged in her complaint that her husband Felipe boarded the bus owned and operated by petitioner Philhawk Transport Corporation and driven by its authorized driver, petitioner Alvin Ausa. However, before Felipe could safely and completely enter, petitioner Ausa quickly started the bus, causing Felipe to fall. He was ran over by the right rear tire of the vehicle. As a result, Felipe was severely injured and was rushed to the Quezon City General Hospital where he died several hours later.

Petitioners denied their liability. They argued that there was no contract of carriage between them and Felipe and that it was the negligence of Felipe which was the immediate and proximate cause of the accident. He allegedly chased after the moving bus to board it, resulting in the accident.

The trial court rendered judgment in favor of private respondent:

In view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the herein defendants. Defendants are held joint (sic) and severally liable and are ordered to pay the herein plaintiff the following amount (sic):

1) P50,000.00 as death benefits;

2) P33,000.00 as actual damages representing hospitalization, funeral, burial and other related expenses;

3) P100,000.00 as compensatory damages for loss of expected earnings of the victim Felipe Sulit, Jr.;

4) P50,000.00 as moral damages;

5) P40,000.00 as reasonable attorney's fees;

6) Costs of suit.

SO ORDERED. [3] cralaw

This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).

Undaunted, petitioners filed this petition on the following grounds:

I.�� THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A SERIOUS REVERSIBLE ERROR IN ACCORDING EVIDENTIARY VALUE ON AN AFFIDAVIT WHERE THE AFFIANT WAS NEVER PRESENTED ON THE WITNESS STAND xxx

II.� THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS MISERABLY ERRED IN HOLDING PETITIONERS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES xxx [4] cralaw

At the outset, it must be pointed out that petitioners raise purely questions of fact. In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court. [5] cralaw Factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court and will generally not be reviewed on appeal. [6] cralaw Inquiry into the veracity of the CA's factual findings and conclusions is not the function of the Supreme Court for the Court is not a trier of facts. [7] cralaw Neither is it our function to re-examine and weigh anew the respective evidence of the parties. [8] cralaw

While this Court has recognized several exceptions to this rule, to wit:(1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion, [9] cralaw none of these exceptions finds application here. No compelling reason whatsoever is shown by petitioners for this Court to disturb and reverse the trial court's findings and conclusions, as affirmed by the CA.

It is the petitioners' contention that the CA "committed serious reversible error in according evidentiary value on an affidavit where the affiant was never presented on the witness stand." [10] cralaw However, as found by the CA, the trial court did not rely solely on this affidavit and instead considered it along with other pieces of evidence such as the (1) autopsy report and post-mortem findings of the National Bureau of Investigation (2) testimony of the conductor stating that at the time of the accident, many commuters were chasing the bus, proving that the entrance door of the bus was open (3) handwritten statement of petitioner Ausa admitting that the deceased had actually boarded the bus when he unequivocally declared that "Hindi ko napansin na sumabit pa rin ang nasabing tao at nasagasaan ng hulihang kanang bahagi ng gulong," in holding that the deceased was in fact already inside the bus. We rule that the CA did not commit reversible error in affirming the trial court's findings.

Considering that the contract of carriage was established, the court need not make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier in order to hold it responsible for the payment of damages sought by the passenger, or in this case, the passenger's widow. Under Article 1756 of the Civil Code, in case of death or injuries to passengers, a common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless it proves that it observed extraordinary diligence.

Both the trial court and CA found that private respondent had satisfactorily proven the existence of the factual basis for the damages adjudged against petitioners. Again, this is a factual matter binding and conclusive upon this Court. Likewise, the determination of the amount of damages commensurate with the factual findings upon which it is based is primarily the task of the trial court. [11] cralaw Having established the legal and factual bases for the award of damages and finding that the amounts adjudged are not excessive, we hold that it was not error for the CA to accord respect to these factual findings.

To conclude, we emphasize that the grant of due course to a petition for review is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion. Due course will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor.12 As the questions raised are factual and there is no reversible error in the respondent court's decision, the petition is hereby DENIED.

Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Magdangal M. de Leon of the Fourteenth Division; Rollo, p. 23.

[2] cralaw Id., Rollo, p. 32.

[3] cralaw Decided by Judge Noel G. Tijam, Rollo, p. 66.

[4] cralaw Petitioners' Petition, Rollo, p. 8.

[5] cralaw Pleyto v. Lomboy, G.R. No. 148737, 16 June 2004; Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Wong, 412 Phil. 207, 216 (2001).

[6] cralaw Lazaro v. Court of Appeals, 423 Phil. 554, 558 (2001); Garrido v. Court of Appeals, 421 Phil. 872, 881 (2001); em>Santos v. Spouses Reyes, 420 Phil. 313, 317 (2001); Yu Bun Guan v. Ong, 419 Phil. 845, 854 (2001); Fernandez v. Fernandez, 416 Phil. 322, 337 (2001); Nagkakaisang Kapisanan Kapitbahayan sa Commonwealth Avenue v. Court of Appeals, 414 Phil. 146, 153-154 (2001).

[7] cralaw First Metro Investment Corp. v. Este del Sol Mountain Reserve, Inc., 420 Phil. 902, 914 (2001).

[8] cralaw Jose v. People, G.R. No. 148371, August 12, 2004.

[9] cralaw Langkaan Realty Development, Inc. v. United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 139437, 8 December 2000, 347 SCRA 542, 549; Nokom v. National Labor Relations Commission, 390 Phil. 1228, 1242 (2000); CIR v. Embroidery and Garments Industries (Phil.), Inc., 364 Phil. 541, 546-547 (1999); Sta. Maria v. Court of Appeals, 349 Phil. 275, 282-283 (1998).

[10] cralaw Petitioners' Petition, Rollo, p. 11.

[11] cralaw Tocao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127405, 4 October 2000, 342 SCRA 20, 38, citing Air France v. Carrascoso, 124 Phil. 772, 742 (1966).

12 Rule 45, Sec. 6, Rules of Court.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com