Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1957 > December 1957 Decisions > G.R. No. L-7763 December 2, 1957 - HONORIA DELGADO VDA. DE GREGORIO v. GO CHONG BING

102 Phil 556:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-7763. December 2, 1957.]

HONORIA DELGADO VDA. DE GREGORIO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GO CHONG BING, Defendant-Appellee.

Pedro P. Suarez and Sabina Agcaoili Suarez for Appellants.

Castillo, Cervantes, Occena, Lozano, Montana, Cunanan & Sison for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


DAMAGES; NEGLIGENCE; LIABILITY OF OWNER OF VEHICLE; PROXIMATE CAUSE OF ACCIDENT; ACT OF PERSON NOT RELATED TO DEFENDANT. — The defendant a truck owner ordered FR his driver but had only a student’s permit to drive said truck. Some persons boarded the truck and among them was one policeman by the name of VO. While the truck was on the way, it made a stop and then VO the policeman took the wheel from FR who gave the wheel for fear of, or out of respect for the uniformed policeman and because FR believed that the former had both the ability and authority to drive the truck, especially as he himself had only a student’s permit and not a driver’s license. While the truck was being driven by VO, it so happened that they came to a truck that was trying to park on the left side of the road. But as they approached the parking truck, and in order to avoid colliding with it, VO swerve the truck towards the right proceeding to hit two pedestrian and instead of applying the brake put his foot on the gasoline and the truck did not stop but went on and hit and ran over one of the pedestrians. Because of the accident, the policeman was prosecuted for homicide with reckless imprudence to which he pleaded guilty and was sentenced accordingly. The heirs of the victim brought the present action for damages against the defendant. owner of the truck but was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the death or accident was accused by an act or omission of a person who is not in any way related to the defendant. Plaintiffs appealed contending that when the defendant permitted his cargador who was not provided with driver’s license, to drive the truck, he thereby violated the provisions of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law (Section 28, Act No. 3992), and this constitutes negligence per se. Held: Where the death or accident is caused by an act or omission of a person who is not in any way related to the defendant and the said act is the proximate, immediate and direct cause of the death of the victim or accident which is punishable by law, defendant should be absolved from any civil liability. The reason is not because one responsible for the accident had already received indemnification therefor, but because there is no direct and proximate causal connection between the negligence or violation of the law by the defendant to the death of the victim.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Davao absolving defendant from liability for the accidental death of Quirico Gregorio. It came to this Court as the amount demanded in the complaint is more than P50,000.

On or before June 2, 1952, defendant was the owner of a truck. He had a driver and a cargador or driver’s helper by the name of Francisco Romera. In the afternoon of June 2, 1952, defendant ordered Romera to drive his truck, with instructions to follow another truck driven by his driver and help the latter in crossing Sumlog river which was then flooded, should it be unable to cross the river because of the flood. Romera at that time was not a licensed driver. He only had a student’s permit, issued to him on March 31, 1952 (Exhibit "1"). The truck started from the town of Lupon at about 5:30 o’clock in the afternoon, driven by Romera. Some persons boarded the truck and among them was one policeman by the name of Venancio Orfanel. While the truck was on the way, it made a stop and then Orfanel took the wheel from Romera, while the latter stayed on the driver’s left, reclined on a spare tire inside of the truck. As to the circumstances under which Orfanel was able to take hold of and drive the truck, there is some dispute and this matter will be taken up later in the decision.

While the truck was being driven by Orfanel, with another truck ahead of it driven by defendant’s driver, it so happened that they came to a truck that was trying to park on the left side of the road. Romera suggested to Orfanel that he shift to low gear and Orfanel did so. But as they approached the parking truck, and in order to avoid colliding with it, Orfanel swerved the truck towards the right. It so happened that at that time two pedestrians were on the right side of the road. As the truck had swerved to the right and was proceeding to hit the said pedestrians, Romera told Orfanel to apply the brake, but Orfanel instead of doing so put his foot on the gasoline and the truck did not stop but went on and hit and ran over one of the pedestrians, by the name of Quirico Gregorio. The plaintiffs-appellants in this action are Gregorio’s widow and his children and heirs. Because of the accident, Orfanel was prosecuted for homicide with reckless imprudence. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced accordingly.

As hinted above, an important issue in the case has relation to the circumstances under which Orfanel was able to take hold of the wheel and drive the truck. To sustain the theory that defendant’s cargador Francisco Romera was negligent, plaintiffs introduced one Javier A. Dayo as a witness. According to this witness the truck was speeding at the rate of 20 miles an hour. According to him also, while the truck was about to pass by the house of one Lucio, running at a speed of 20 miles per hour, he heard Romera shouting "hand brake! hand brake!" ; that both Orfanel and Romera tried to turn the driver’s wheel to the left and direct the truck towards the left to avoid the collision. According to this witness also, Romera gave the wheel to Orfanel voluntarily upon the request of the latter.

Plaintiffs also sought to prove that Romera gave the truck voluntarily to the policeman by presenting the affidavit of Romera made on June 3, 1952 (Exhibit "1"). This affidavit, however, is inadmissible as evidence against the defendant because it is hearsay with respect to him. It may not be considered as part of the res gestae either, because the affidavit was taken one day after the incident.

Against the above evidence, the defendant testified that he gave positive instructions to Romera not to allow anybody to drive the truck, and Romera himself testified that he had warned Orfanel that his master prohibited him from allowing anybody to drive the truck, but that as Orfanel was a uniformed policeman and insisted that he drive the truck, and that as he believed that the policeman knew how to drive, he let him drive the truck.

We are of the belief that defendant’s claim that Romera gave the wheel to the policeman for fear of, or out of respect for, the latter, has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence. The testimony of witness Dayo is not corroborated by any other testimony. As he testified that he was two meters behind Romera, he could not have noticed with exactness the circumstances under which the policeman was able to get hold of the wheel and drive the truck and his testimony in that respect cannot be believed. We are, therefore, forced to the conclusion that the defendant’s cargador, or Francisco Romera, gave the wheel to Orfanel out of respect for the latter, who was a uniformed policeman and because he believed that the latter had both the ability and the authority to drive the truck, especially as he himself had only a student’s permit and not a driver’s license.

The court a quo dismissed the action on the ground that as the death or accident was caused by an act or omission of a person who is not in any way related to the defendant, and as such act or omission was punishable by law, and as a matter of fact he had already been punished therefor, no civil liability should be imposed upon the defendant. Against this decision the plaintiffs have appealed to this Court, contending that when defendant permitted his cargador, who was not provided with a driver’s license, to drive the truck, he thereby violated the provisions of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law (section 28, Act No. 3992), and that this constitutes negligence per se. (People v. Santos, Et Al., CA-G. R. No. 1088-1089R.) But admitting for the sake of argument that the defendant had so violated the law, or may be deemed negligent in entrusting the truck to one who is not provided with a driver’s license, it is clear that he may not be declared liable for the accident because his negligence was not the direct and proximate cause thereof. The leading case in this jurisdiction on negligence is that of Taylor v. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company, 16 Phil. 8. Negligence as a source of obligation both under the civil law and in American cases was carefully considered and it was held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"We agree with counsel for appellant that under the Civil Code, as under the generally accepted doctrine in the United States, the plaintiff in an action such as that under consideration, in order to establish his right to a recovery, must establish by competent evidence:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(1) Damages to the plaintiff.

"(2) Negligence by act or omission of which defendant personally, or some person for whose acts it must respond, was guilty.

"(3) The connection of cause and effect between the negligence and the damage." (Taylor v. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co., supra, p. 15.)

In accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court of Spain, in order that a person may be held guilty for damage through negligence, it is necessary that there be an act or omission on the part of the person who is to be charged with the liability and that damage is produced by the said act or omission.

"In accordance with the fundamental principle of proof, that the burden thereof is upon the plaintiff, it is apparent that it is the duty of him who shall claim damages to establish their existence. The decisions of April 9, 1896, and March 18, July 6, and September 27, 1898, have especially supported the principle, the first setting forth in detail the necessary points of the proof, which are two: An Act or omission on the part of the person who is to be charged with the liability, and the production of the damage by said act or omission.

"This includes, by inference, the establishment of s relation of cause or effect between the act or the omission and the damage; the latter must be the direct result of one of the first two. As the decision of March 22, 1881, said, it is necessary that the damages result immediately and directly from an act performed culpably and wrongfully; ‘necessarily presupposing a legal ground for imputability.’" (Taylor v. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co., supra, p. 28.)

It is evident that the proximate, immediate and direct cause of the death of the plaintiffs’ intestate was the negligence of Orfanel, a uniformed policeman, who took the wheel of the truck from defendant’s cargador, in spite of the protest of the latter. The reason for absolving the defendant therefor is not because the one responsible for the accident had already received indemnification for the accident, but because there is no direct and proximate causal connection between the negligence or violation of the law by the defendant to the death of the plaintiffs’ intestate.

For the foregoing considerations, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, without costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





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






December-1957 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-7763 December 2, 1957 - HONORIA DELGADO VDA. DE GREGORIO v. GO CHONG BING

    102 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. L-10263 December 17, 1957 - ASSN. OF DRUGSTORE EMPLOYEES v. ARSENIO MARTINEZ

    102 Phil 561

  • G.R. No. L-10787 December 17, 1957 - VISAYAN ELECTRIC CO. v. the CITY OF DUMAGUETE

    102 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. L-10795 December 17, 1957 - TEOTIMO OCHOTORENA v. the DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    102 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. L-10008 December 18, 1957 - SY KIAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. L-11240 December 18, 1957 - CONCHITA LIGUEZ v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

    102 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. L-9914 December 19, 1957 - CONCEPCION H. LUNA v. MONS. PEDRO P. SANTOS

    102 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. L-8451 December 20, 1957 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC ADMINISTRATOR OF DAVAO v. THE LAND REGISTRATION COMM.

    102 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. L-10850 December 20, 1957 - DOROTEO ROMERO v. PEDRO VILLAMOR

    102 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. L-12820 December 20, 1957 - SMB BOX FACTORY WORKER’S UNION (PAFLU) v. HON. JUDGE GUSTAVO VICTORIANO

    102 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. L-9549 December 21, 1957 - MANILA TOBACCO ASSOCIATION v. THE CITY OF MANILA

    102 Phil 653

  • G.R. No. L-9646 December 21, 1957 - LAY KOCK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. L-7452 December 23, 1957 - JOSE A. ARCHES v. WILLIAM VILLARRUZ

    102 Phil 661

  • G.R. No. L-8259 December 23, 1957 - ANG MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA NG ANG TIBAY ENTERPRISES v. ANG TIBAY

    102 Phil 669

  • G.R. Nos. L-11128-33 December 23, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE ESCARES

    102 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. L-11489 December 23, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. UY JUI PIO

    102 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. L-7593 December 24, 1957 - IN RE: Florencio P. Buan v. SYLVINA C. LAYA

    102 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. L-7705 December 24, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL GERVACIO

    102 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-7805 December 24, 1957 - PETRONILO CASTAÑEDA v. CATALINA M. DE LEON

    102 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. L-7840 December 24, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL ABRINA Y MONTANO ET. AL.

    102 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. L-10182 December 24, 1957 - JOSE GEUKEKO v. HON. SALVADOR ARANETA

    102 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-11142 December 24, 1957 - ISIDORO P. AURELIO v. FIRST NATIONAL SURETY & ASSURANCE COMPANY

    102 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. L-6273 December 27, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE HIDALGO y RESURRECCION

    102 Phil 719

  • G.R. No. L-11114 December 27, 1957 - CRESENCIANO TORREFRANCA v. FILOMENO ALBISO

    102 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-11435 December 27, 1957 - HON. MATEO L. ALCASID v. AMADO V. SAMSON

    102 Phil 735

  • G.R. No. L-7310 December 28, 1957 - ANTONIO MANIMTIM v. CO CHO CHIT

    102 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-8333 December 28, 1957 - GELACIO BODIONGAN v. HON. PATRICIO C. CENIZA

    102 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-8334 December 28, 1957 - BIENVENIDO BABAO v. FLORENCIO PEREZ

    102 Phil 756

  • G.R. No. L-10000 December 28, 1957 - IN RE: JOSE B. SUNTAY v. FEDERICO C. SUNTAY

    102 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. L-10036 December 28, 1957 - GENERAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. CESAREO DE LEON

    102 Phil 784

  • G.R. Nos. L-10943 & L-10944 December 28, 1957 - ANGAT RIVER IRRIGATION SYSTEM v. ANGAT RIVER WORKERS’ UNION (PLUM)

    102 Phil 789