torts and damages full text page 3

8/9/2019 Torts and Damages Full Text Page 3

1/146

1

TORTS AND DAMAGES

FULL TEXT PAGE 3

III. DEFENSE AGAINST CHARGE OF NEGLIGENCE

E. Prescription (Art !"#

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L$!%"% A&'&st 3) *%+

MR. AND MRS. ROMEO FERRER ,n- ANNETTE FERRER) petitioners,vs.HON. ICENTE G. ERICTA) in /is c,p,cit0 ,s Presi-in' 1&-'e o2 t/e Co&rt o2 FirstInst,nce o2 Ri,4) 5&eon Cit0) 6r,nc/ XIII) MR. AND MRS. FRANCIS PFLEIDER,n- DENNIS PFLEIDER) respondents.

Delano F. Villaruz for petitioners.

Porderio C. David for private respondents.

ANTONIO) J:

Mandaus to copel the iediate e!ecution of the Decision of the Court of "irstInstance of #ue$on Cit%, &ranch 'VIII, presided over b% respondent (ud)e, in Civil CaseNo. #*+-/, dated (ul% 0+, +/1. 2he pertinent facts are as follo3s4

In a coplaint for daa)es a)ainst respondents, dated Deceber 0/, +/ but actuall%filed on (anuar% -, +/1 5Civil Case No. #*+-/6, and assi)ned to the sala ofrespondent (ud)e, it 3as alle)ed that defendants Mr. and Mrs. "rancis Pfleider, residentsof &a%a3an, Ne)ros Oriental, 3ere the o3ners or operators of a "ord pic7*up car8 that at

about 1499 o:cloc7 in the afternoon of Deceber ;+, +/9, in the streets of &a%a3an,Ne)ros Oriental, their son, defendant Dennis Pfleider, 3ho 3as then onl% si!teen 5+-6%ears of a)e, 3ithout proper official authorit%, drove the above*described vehicle, 3ithoutdue re)ard to traffic rules and re)ulations, and 3ithout ta7in) the necessar% precaution toprevent innnette "errer 3as subitted b% petitioners and aditted b% the trial court.

On (une 0-, +/1, private respondents filed a otion to ?set aside the order of defaultand subse=uent pleadin)s? on the )round that ?defendants: failure to appear for pre*trial3as due to accident or e!cusable ne)lect.? 2his 3as opposed b% petitioners on the)round that the said pleadin) 3as not under oath, contrar% to the re=uireents of Sec. ;,Rule +@ of the Rules, and that it 3as not accopanied b% an affidavit of erit sho3in)that the defendants have a )ood defense. In vie3 of this, the otion of private

respondents 3as denied b% respondent (ud)e on (ul% 0+, +/1. On the sae date,respondent (ud)e rendered


2/146

2

oral daa)es8 56 P+9,999.99 for e!eplar% daa)es8 516 P1,999.99 for attorne%:sfees8 and 5-6 costs of suit.

On Septeber +, +/1, private respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration of thedecision and of the order den%in) the otion to set aside order of default, based on thefollo3in) )rounds4 5+6 the coplaint states no cause of action insofar as Mr. and Mrs.Pfleider are concerned because it does not alle)e that at the tie of the ishap,defendant Dennis Pfleider 3as livin) 3ith the, the fact bein) that at such tie he 3aslivin) apart fro the, hence, there can be no application of >rticle 0+@9 of the CivilCode, upon 3hich parents: liabilit% is preised8 and 506 that tile coplaint sho3s on itsface ?that it 3as filed onl% on January 6, 197, or after the lapse of MORE 2A>N "OBRE>RS fro the date of the accident on Deceber ;+, +/9?, li7e3ise appearin) frothe coplaint and, therefore, the action has alread% prescribed under >rticle ++- of theCivil Code.

> Suppleental Motion for Reconsideration 3as subse=uentl% filed b% defendants*private respondents on Septeber +9, +/1, alle)in) that their defense of prescriptionhas not been 3aived and a% be raised even at such sta)e of the proceedin)s becauseon the face of the coplaint, as 3ell as fro the plaintiff:s evidence, their cause of actionhad alread% prescribed, citin) as authorit% the decision of this Court in P!ilippine"ational #an$ v. Pa%ifi% Co&&ission 'ouse, 3as 3ell as the decisions =uoted therein.2he Opposition !to the above suppleental otion interposed b% plaintiffs*petitionersaverred that4 5a6 the defense of prescription had been 3aived 3hile the defense that thecoplaint states no cause of action ?is available onl% at an% tie not later than the trialand prior to the decision?8 5b6 inasuch as defendants have been declared in default forfailure to appear at the pretrial conference, the% have lost their standin) in court andcannot be allo3ed to adduce evidence nor to ta7e part in the trial, in accordance 3ithSection 0 of Rule +@ of the Rules of Court8 and 5c6 the otion and suppleental otionfor reconsideration arepro for&abecause the defenses raised therein have beenpreviousl% raised and passed upon b% respondent court in resolvin) defendants: otionto set aside order of default. &ein)pro for&a, said otion and suppleental otion donot suspend the runnin) of the thirt%*da% period to appeal, 3hich 3as fro >u)ust 1,+/1, 3hen defendants received a cop% of the decision, to Septeber , +/1, and

hence the decision has alread% becoe final and e!ecutor%. Plaintiffs*petitionersaccordin)l% pra%ed that a 3rit of e!ecution be issued to enforce the s earl% as C!ua (a&$o v. Dioso, et al., 7this Court sustained the disissal of acounterclai on the )round of prescription, althou)h such defense 3as not raised in theans3er of the plaintiff. 2hus, this Court held that 3here the ans3er does not ta7e issue3ith the coplaint as to dates involved in the defendant:s clai of prescription, his failureto specificall% plead prescription in the ans3er does not constitute a 3aiver of the

defense of prescription. It 3as e!plained that the defense of prescription, even if notraised in a otion to disiss or in the ans3er, is not deeed 3aived unless suchdefense raises issues of fact not appearin) upon the precedin) pleadin).

In P!ilippine "ational #an$ v. Perez, et al., "3hich 3as an action filed b% the PhilippineNational &an7 on March 00, +-+ for revival of a ando Pere$, re)orio Puuntoc and Vir)inia de Puuntoc pursuant toSection -, Rule ; of the rules of court the defendants 3ere declared in default for theirfailure to file their ans3er. 2here upon, the plaintiff subitted its evidence, but 3hen thecase 3as subitted for decision, the court a quo disissed the coplaint on the )roundthat plaintiff:s cause of action had alread% prescribed under >rticles ++ and ++10 of theCivil Code. 2he plaintiff in said case, contendin) that since prescription is a defense thatcan onl% be set up b% defendants, the court could not &otu proprioconsider it as a basisfor disissal, oved to reconsider the order, but its otion 3as denied. hen the issue3as raised to this Court, e ruled4

It is true that the defense of prescription can onl% be considered if thesae is invo7ed as such in the ans3er of the defendant and that in thisparticular instance no such defense 3as invo7ed because the defendantshad been declared in default, but such rule does riot obtain 3hen theevidence sho3s that the cause of action upon 3hich plaintiff:s coplaintis based is alread% barred b% the statute of liitations. 5Ephasissupplied.6

>)ain, inP!ilippine "ational #an$ v. Pa%ifi% Co&&ission 'ouse, %3here the actionsou)ht to revive a


3/146

3

disissal of the coplaint on the )round of prescription, althou)h such defense 3as notraised in the ans3er, overrulin) the appellants: invocation of Section 0 of Rule of theRules of Court that ?defenses and obpril @, +/-, the "F&Marsia Philippines o3ned b% the private respondent 2rans*>sia Shippin) Hines, Inc. >s aconse=uence of the collision, the "F& Marfter the ishap, the captains of both vessels filed their respective arine protests 3iththe &oard of Marine In=uir% of the Philippine Coast uard. 2he &oard conducted aninvesti)ation for the purpose of deterinin) the pro!iate cause of the aritiecollision.

On October +, +@+, the &oard concluded that the loss of the "F& Marsia Philippines durin) the collision. 2he findin)s ade b% the&oard served as the basis of a subse=uent Decision of the Coandant of thePhilippine Coast uard dated >pril 0, +@0 3herein the second ate of the MFV >siaPhilippines 3as suspended fro pursuin) his profession as a arine officer.

On Ma% ;9, +@1, the petitioners instituted a Coplaint for daa)es a)ainst the privaterespondent before &ranch ++/ of the Re)ional 2rial Court in Pasa% Cit%. 2he suit 3asdoc7eted as Civil Case No. 09/*P.

2he private respondent filed a Motion see7in) the disissal of the Coplaint on the)round of prescription. Ae ar)ued that under >rticle ++- of the Civil Code, 3theprescriptive period for institutin) a Coplaint for daa)es arisin) fro a =uasi*delict li7ea aritie collision is four %ears. Ae aintained that the petitioners should have filedtheir Coplaint 3ithin four %ears fro the date 3hen their cause of action accrued, i.e.,fro >pril @, +/- 3hen the aritie collision too7 place, and that accordin)l%, theCoplaint filed on Ma% ;9, +@1 3as instituted be%ond the four*%ear prescriptive period.

"or their part, the petitioners contended that aritie collisions have peculiarities andcharacteristics 3hich onl% persons 3ith special s7ill, trainin) and e!perience li7e theebers of the &oard of Marine In=uir% can properl% anal%$e and resolve. 2hepetitioners ar)ued that the runnin) of the prescriptive period 3as tolled b% the filin) of thearine protest and that their cause of action accrued onl% on >pril 0, +@0, the date3hen the Decision ascertainin) the ne)li)ence of the cre3 of the MFV >sia Philippineshad becoe final, and that the four*%ear prescriptive period under >rticle ++- of the CivilCode should be coputed fro the said date. 2he petitioners concluded that inasuchas the Coplaint 3as filed on Ma% ;9, +@1, the sae 3as seasonabl% filed.


4/146

4

In an Order dated Septeber 01, +@-, !the trial court denied the Motion filed b% theprivate respondent. 2he trial court observed that in ascertainin) ne)li)ence relatin) to aaritie collision, there is a need to rel% on hi)hl% technical aspects attendant to suchcollision, and that the &oard of Marine In=uir% 3as constituted pursuant to the PhilippineMerchant Marine Rules and Re)ulations, 3hich too7 effect on (anuar% +, +/1 b% virtueof Hetter of Instruction No. 09@ issued on >u)ust +0, +/ b% then President "erdinandE. Marcos, precisel% to ans3er the need. 2he trial court 3ent on to sa% that the four*%earprescriptive period provided in >rticle ++- of the Civil Code should be)in to run onl%fro >pril 0, +@0, the date 3hen the ne)li)ence of the cre3 of the MFV >sia Philippineshad been finall% ascertained. 2he pertinent portions of the Order of the trial court are asfollo3s

Considerin) that the action concerns an incident involvin) a collision atsea of t3o vehicles and to deterine ne)li)ence for that incident there is

an absolute need to rel% on hi)hl% technical aspects attendant to suchcollisions. It is obviousl% to ans3er such a need that the Marine &oard ofIn=uir% 5i%6 3as constituted pursuant to the Philippine Merchant MarineRules and Re)ulations 3hich becae effective (anuar% +, +/1 underHetter of Instruction5s6 No. 09@ dated >u)ust +0, +/. 2he relevantsection of that la3 5>rt. 'VIFbF provided as follo35s64

+. #oard of arine /nquiry )#/* 0 Shallhave the ppeals b% 3a% of a specialcivil action for %ertiorariand prohibition, alle)in) therein that the trial court coitted a)rave abuse of discretion in refusin) to disiss the Coplaint filed b% the petitioners.2he case 3as assi)ned to the Second Division of the appellate court and 3as doc7etedas Case No. C>*.R. SP No. +09;0. "

In a Decision dated Noveber 0/, +@/, %and clarified in a Resolution dated (anuar% +0,

+@@,+the Court of >ppeals )ranted the Petition filed b% the private respondent andordered the trial court to disiss the Coplaint. 2he pertinent portions of the Decision ofthe appellate court are as follo3s

It is clear that the cause of action of private respondent 5the hereinpetitioners Ernesto Graer, (r. and Marta Graer6 accrued fro theoccurrence of the ishap because that is the precise tie 3hendaa)es 3ere inflicted upon and sustained b% the a))rieved part% andfro 3hich relief fro the court is presentl% sou)ht. Private respondentsshould have iediatel% instituted a coplaint for daa)es based on a=uasi*delict 3ithin four %ears fro the said arine incident because itscause of action had alread% definitel% ripened at the onset of the collision."or this reason, he 5sic6 could cite the ne)li)ence on the part of thepersonnel of the petitioner to e!ercise due care and lac7 of 5sic6 dili)enceto prevent the collision that resulted in the total loss of their ! ! ! boat.

e can onl% e!tend scant consideration to respondent


5/146

5

another, if the accrual of a cause of action 3ill be ade to depend on theaction to be ta7en b% certain )overnent a)encies, then necessaril%, thetollin) of the prescriptive period 3ould hin)e upon the discretion of sucha)encies. Said alternative it is eas% to foresee 3ould be frau)ht 3ithha$ards. 2heir investi)ations i)ht be dela%ed and la) and then3itnesses in the eantie i)ht not be available or disappear, or certaindocuents a% no lon)er be available or i)ht be islaid. ... *

2he petitioners filed a Motion for the reconsideration of the said Decision but the sae3as denied b% the Court of >ppeals in a Resolution dated Ma% 0/, +@@. ;

Aence, the instant Petition 3herein the ar)uents raised b% the petitioner before the trialcourt are reiterated.In addition thereto, the petitioner contends that the Decision of theCourt of >ppeals 2he private respondent filed its Coent on the Petition see7in)

therein the disissal of the sae. 3It is also contended b% the private respondent thatthe rulin) of the Court in Vas=ue$ is not applicable to the case at bar because the saidcase involves a aritie collision attributable to a fortuitous event. In a subse=uentpleadin), the private respondent ar)ues that the Philippine Merchant Marine Rules andRe)ulations cannot have the effect of repealin) the provisions of the Civil Code onprescription of actions.!

On Septeber +,+@@, the Court resolved to )ive due course to the petition. 7>fter theparties filed their respective eoranda, the case 3as deeed subitted for decision.

2he petition is devoid of erit. Bnder >rticle ++- of the Civil Code, an action basedupon a =uasi*delict ust be instituted 3ithin four 56 %ears. 2he prescriptive periodbe)ins fro the da% the =uasi*delict is coitted. In Paulan vs. araia,"this Courtruled that in an action for daa)es arisin) fro the collision of t3o 506 truc7s, the actionbein) based on a =uasi*delict, the four 56 %ear prescriptive period ust be counted frothe da% of the collision.

In3spanol vs. C!air&an, P!ilippine Veterans +d&inistration, %this Court held asfollo3s*

2he ri)ht of action accrues 3hen there e!ists a cause of action, 3hichconsists of ; eleents, nael%4 a6 a ri)ht in favor of the plaintiff b%3hatever eans and under 3hatever la3 it arises or is created8 b6 anobli)ation on the part of defendant to respect such ri)ht8 and c6 an act oroission on the part of such defendant violative of the ri)ht of the plaintiff... It is onl% 3hen the last eleent occurs or ta7es place that it can besaid in la3 that a cause of action has arisen ... .

"ro the fore)oin) rulin), it is clear that the prescriptive period ust be counted 3henthe last eleent occurs or ta7es place, that is, the tie of the coission of an act oroission violative of the ri)ht of the plaintiff, 3hich is the tie 3hen the cause of actionarises.

It is therefore clear that in this action for daa)es arisin) fro the collision of t3o 506vessels the four 56 %ear prescriptive period ust be counted fro the da% of thecollision. 2he a))rieved part% need not 3ait for a deterination b% an adinistrativebod% li7e a &oard of Marine In=uir%, that the collision 3as caused b% the fault orne)li)ence of the other part% before he can file an action for daa)es. 2he rulin) inVas=ue$ does not appl% in this case. Iediatel% after the collision the a))rieved part%can see7 relief fro the courts b% alle)in) such ne)li)ence or fault of the o3ners, a)entsor personnel of the other vessel.

2hus, the respondent court correctl% found that the action of petitioner has prescribed.2he collision occurred on >pril @, +/-. 2he coplaint for daa)es 3as filed iii court onl%on Ma% ;9, + @1, 3as be%ond the four 56 %ear prescriptive period.

AERE"ORE, the petition is disissed. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

"arvasa, Cruz, 4ri5o+quino and edialdea, JJ., %on%ur.

F. Fortit&o&s E


6/146

6

It 3as one of those prosaic decisions not re=uirin) deep thou)ht or lon) deliberation. 2hepetitioner arrived at it alost as a atter of course, appl%in) 3hat he believed then to becoon sense. Hittle did he reali$e until later that it 3ould cause hi uch an)uish,even endan)er his life, and ultiatel% lead to this liti)ation. &ut such are the =uir7s offate.

>t the tie of the incident in =uestion, 2eodoro M. Aernande$ 3as the officer*in*char)eand special disbursin) officer of the 2ernate &each Prouthorit% in Cavite. >s such, he 3ent to the ain office of the >uthorit% in Manila on (ul%+, +@;, to encash t3o chec7s coverin) the 3a)es of the eplo%ees and the operatin)e!penses of the Pro


7/146

7

resi)ned hiself to the robber% and allo3ed the culprits to )o scot*free. &ut he acted. Aisaction after the robber% onl% )oes to sho3 his vi)ilance over the one% entrusted to hiscustod% and his readiness to protect it even at )reat personal ris7.

In his Coent, then Solicitor*eneral Sedfre% >. Ordone$ supported the denial of thepetitioner:s re=uest, ar)uin) that Aernande$ 3as ne)li)ent in the safe7eepin) of thestolen funds as correctl% found b% the Coission on >udit. %Hater, ho3ever, hissuccessor, Solicitor eneral "rancisco I. Chave$, subitted a Manifestation in Hieu ofMeorandu in 3hich he sided 3ith the petitioner, a)reein) that Aernande$ had notcoitted an% ne)li)ence or, assuin) he 3as )uilt% of contributor% ne)li)ence, hadade up for it 3ith his efforts to retrieve the one% and his capture of one of the robbers,3ho 3as eventuall% convicted. +2his propted the respondent Coission on >udit tosubit its o3n eorandu.

2he Coission on >udit insists in this eorandu that the petitioner should not berelieved fro his one% accountabilit% because it 3as his o3n ne)li)ence that led to theloss of the cash he had sou)ht to ta7e not to 2ernate in Cavite but to Marilao.

Its contention is that the petitioner should not have encashed the chee7s on (ul% +, +@;,as the hour 3as alread% late and he 7ne3 he could not return to 2ernate before ni)htfall.Gno3in) this, he should have prudentl% deferred encashin) the chec7s until the ornin)of the ne!t 3or7in) da% on (ul% 1, +@;, 3hen he could have safel% ta7en the one% to2ernate. Ais alle)ed concern for the convenience of his fello3 3or7ers 3as not reall% avalid reason because one of the chec7s he had encashed, in the )reater aount ofP-,-.99, 3as in fact not for salaries and 3a)es but for the operatin) e!penses of theProdinistrative Code reads as follo3s4

Section -;@. Credit for loss o%%urrin in transit or due to %asualty 0"oti%e to +uditor. hen a loss of )overnent funds or propert% occurs3hile the sae is in transit or is caused b% fire, theft, or other casualt%,

the officer accountable therefor or havin) custod% thereof shalliediatel% notif% the >uditor eneral, or the provincial auditor,accordin) as a atter is 3ithin the ori)inal uditor, orprovincial auditor, a% in the particular case allo3, shall present hisapplication for relief, 3ith the available evidence in support thereof. >nofficer 3ho fails to copl% 3ith this re=uireent shall not be relieved ofliabilit% or allo3ed credit for an% such loss in the settleent of hisaccounts.

2his provision has since then been reiterated, 3ith soe sli)ht odification, in Section/; of P.D. No. +1, other3ise 7no3n as the ?overnent >uditin) Code of thePhilippines,? 3hich 3as proul)ated on (une ++. +/@.

>ppl%in) the letter and spirit of the above*entioned la3s, and after considerin) theestablished facts in the li)ht of the ar)uents of the parties, this Court inclines in favor ofthe petitioner.

Aindsi)ht is a cruel


8/146

8

of accoodatin) his fello3 3or7ers. 2he other alternative 3as to encash the chec7 ison (ul% 1, +@;, the ne!t 3or7in) da% after (ul% +, +@;, 3hich 3ould have eant a 1*da% 3ait for the pa%ent of the said salaries and 3a)es. &ein) a odest eplo%eehiself, Aernando$ ust have reali$ed the )reat discofort it 3ould cause the laborer3ho 3ere dependent on their 3a)es for their sustenance and 3ere an!ious to collecttheir pa% as soon as possible.

"or such an attitude, Aernande$ should be coended rather than faulted.

>s for Aernande$:s choice bet3een Marilao, &ulacan, and 2ernate, Cavite, one couldeasil% a)ree that the forer 3as the safer destination, bein) nearer, and in vie3 of thecoparative ha$ards in the trips to the t3o places. It is true that the petitioneriscalculated, but the Court feels he should not be blaed for that. 2he decision heade seeed lo)ical at that tie and 3as one that could be e!pected of a reasonable

and prudent person. >nd if, as it happened, the t3o robbers attac7ed hi in broadda%li)ht in the CCORDINH, the petition is R>N2ED, 3ithout an% pronounceent as to costs. It isso ordered.

Fernan, C.J., "arvasa, elen%io'errera, 4utierrez, Jr., Paras, Feli%iano, 4an%ay%o,Padilla, #idin, ar&iento, Cortes, 4ri5o+quino, edialdea and -ealado, JJ., %on%ur.

G.R. No. "3+* 1&40 ;) **+

SOUTHEASTERN COLLEGE INC.) petitioner,vs. COURT OF APPEALS) 1UANITA DE1ESUS DA. DE DIMAANO) EMERITA DIMAANO) REMEDIOS DIMAANO)CONSOLACION DIMAANO ,n- MILAGROS DIMAANO) respondents.

PURISIMA) J.:

Petition for revie3 under Rule 1 of the Rules of Court see7in) to set aside the Decisionproul)ated on (ul% ;+, +-, and Resolution dated Septeber +0, +- of the Courtof >ppeals 3in C>*.R. No. +00, entitled ?(uanita de (esus vda. de Diaano, et al. vs.Southeastern Colle)e, Inc.?, 3hich reduced the oral daa)es a3arded belo3 froP+,999,999.99 to P099,999.99. !2he Resolution under attac7 denied petitioner:s otionfor reconsideration.

Private respondents are o3ners of a house at ;0- Colle)e Road, Pasa% Cit%, 3hilepetitioner o3ns a four*store% school buildin) alon) the sae Colle)e Road. On October++, +@, at about -4;9 in the ornin), a po3erful t%phoon ?Salin)? hit Metro Manila.&uffeted b% ver% stron) 3inds, the roof of petitioner:s buildin) 3as partl% ripped off andblo3n a3a%, landin) on and destro%in) portions of the roofin) of private respondents:

house. >fter the t%phoon had passed, an ocular inspection of the destro%ed buildin) 3asconducted b% a tea of en)ineers headed b% the cit% buildin) official, En)r. (esus H.Re%na. Pertinent aspects of the latter:s Report 7dated October +@, +@ stated, asfollo3s4

1. One of the factors that a% have led to this calaitous event is theforation of the buildin) in the area and the )eneral direction of the 3ind.Situated in the peripheral lot is an alost B*shaped foration of *store%buildin). 2hus, 3ith the stron) 3inds havin) a 3esterl% direction, the)eneral foration of the buildin) becoes a bi) funnel*li7e structure, theone situated alon) Colle)e Road, receivin) the heaviest ipact of thestron) 3inds. Aence, there are portions of the roofin), those located onboth ends of the buildin), 3hich reained intact after the stor.

-. >nother factor and perhaps the ost li7el% reason for the dislod)in) ofthe roofin) structural trusses is the iproper anchora)e of the saidtrusses to the roof beas. 2he +F0: diaeter steel bars ebedded on theconcrete roof beas 3hich serve as truss anchora)e are not bolted nornailed to the trusses. Still, there are other steel bars 3hich 3ere not evenbent to the trusses, thus, those trusses are not anchored at all to the roofbeas.

It then recoended that ?to avoid an% further loss and daa)e to lives, libsand propert% of persons livin) in the vicinit%,? the fourth floor of sub


9/146

9

house rendered the sae uninhabitable, forcin) the to sta% teporaril% in others:houses. >nd so the% sou)ht to recover fro petitioner P++/,++-.99, as actual daa)es,P+,999,999.99, as oral daa)es, P;99,999.99, as e!eplar% daa)es andP+99,999.99, for and as attorne%:s fees8 plus costs.

In its >ns3er, petitioner averred that subND >&SOHB2E RE>SON?"OR 2AE RIPPIN*O"" O" 2AE SM>HH POR2ION O" 2AE ROO" O"SOB2AE>S2ERN:S "OBR 56 S2ORE SCAOOH &BIHDIN.

II

2AE 2RI>H COBR2 ERRED IN AOHDIN 2A>2 ?2AE CONS2RBC2IONO" 2AE ROO" O" DE"END>N2:S SCAOOH &BIHDIN >S ">BH2?NO2I2AS2>NDIN 2AE >DMISSION 2A>2 2AERE ERE2PAOONS &E"ORE &B2 NO2 >S R>VE >S 2PAOON ?S>HIN?AICA IS 2AE DIREC2 >ND PRO'IM>2E C>BSE O" 2AE INCIDEN2.

III

2AE 2RI>H COBR2 ERRED IN >>RDIN >C2B>H >ND MOR>HD>M>ES >S EHH >S >22ORNE:S "EES >ND HI2I>2IONE'PENSES >ND COS2S O" SBI2 2O DIM>>NOS AEN 2AE A>VENO2 INCBRRED >C2B>H D>M>ES >2 >HH >S DIM>>NOS A>VE>HRE>D SOHD 2AEIR PROPER2, >N IN2ERVENIN EVEN2 2A>2RENDERS 2AIS C>SE MOO2 >ND >C>DEMIC.

IV

2AE 2RI>H COBR2 ERRED IN ORDERIN 2AE ISSB>NCE O" 2AERI2 O" E'ECB2ION INSPI2E O" 2AE PER"EC2ION O"SOB2AE>S2ERN:S >PPE>H AEN 2AERE IS NO COMPEHHINRE>SON "OR 2AE ISSB>NCE 2AERE2O.

>s entioned earlier, respondent Court of >ppeals affired 3ith odification the trialcourt:s disposition b% reducin) the a3ard of oral daa)es fro P+,999,999.99 toP099,999.99. Aence, petitioner:s resort to this Court, raisin) for resolution the issues of4

+. hether or not the a3ard of actual daa)es Ksi%L to respondentDiaanos on the basis of speculation or con


10/146

10

;. hether or not respondent Diaanos 3ho are no lon)er the o3ner ofthe propert%, subrt ++/. E!cept in cases e!pressl% specified b% the la3, or 3hen it isother3ise declared b% stipulation, or 3hen the nature of the obli)ationre=uires the assuption of ris7, no person shall be responsible for thoseevents 3hich could not be foreseen, or 3hich, thou)h foreseen, 3ereinevitable.

2he antecedent of fortuitous event or %aso fortuitois found in the Partidas3hich definesit as ?an event 3hich ta7es place b% accident and could not have been foreseen.? *Escriche elaborates it as ?an une!pected event or act of od 3hich could neither beforeseen nor resisted.? ;Civilist >rturo M. 2olentino adds that ?KfLortuitous events a% beproduced b% t3o )eneral causes4 5+6 b% nature, such as earth=ua7es, stors, floods,

epideics, fires, etc. and 506 b% the act of an, such as an ared invasion, attac7 b%bandits, )overnental prohibitions, robber%, etc.?

In order that a fortuitous event a% e!ept a person fro liabilit%, it is necessar% that hebe free fro an% previous ne)li)ence or isconduct b% reason of 3hich the loss a%have been occasioned. >n act of od cannot be invo7ed for the protection of a person3ho has been )uilt% of )ross ne)li)ence in not tr%in) to forestall its possible adverseconse=uences. hen a person:s ne)li)ence concurs 3ith an act of od in producin)daa)e or in


11/146

11

the victi. It could have been self*inflicted or caused accidentall% b% a stra% bullet. 2herelationship of cause and effect ust be clearl% sho3n.

In the present case, other than the said ocular inspection, no investi)ation 3asconducted to deterine the real cause of the partial unroofin) of petitioner:s schoolbuildin). Private respondents did not even sho3 that the plans, specifications and desi)nof said school buildin) 3ere deficient and defective. Neither did the% prove an%substantial deviation fro the approved plans and specifications. Nor did the%conclusivel% establish that the construction of such buildin) 3as basicall% fla3ed.

On the other hand, petitioner elicited fro one of the 3itnesses of private respondents,cit% buildin) official (esus Re%na, that the ori)inal plans and desi)n of petitioner:s schoolbuildin) 3ere approved prior to its construction. En)r. Re%na aditted that it 3as a le)alre=uireent before the construction of an% buildin) to obtain a perit fro the cit%

buildin) official 5cit% en)ineer, prior to the passa)e of the &uildin) >ct of +//6. In li7eanner, after construction of the buildin), a certification ust be secured fro the saeofficial attestin) to the readiness for occupanc% of the edifice. Aavin) obtained bothbuildin) perit and certificate of occupanc%, these are, at the ver% least, pri&a fa%ieevidence of the re)ular and proper construction of subpril +, +; b% thetrial court is hereb% nullified and set aside. Private respondents are ordered to reibursean% aount or return to petitioner an% propert% 3hich the% a% have received b% virtueof the enforceent of said 3rit.

AERE"ORE, the petition is R>N2ED and the challen)ed Decision is REVERSED.2he coplaint of private respondents in Civil Case No. /;+ before the trial court a quois ordered DISMISSED and the 3rit of e!ecution issued on >pril +, +; in said case isSE2 >SIDE. >ccordin)l%, private respondents are ORDERED to return to petitioner an%aount or propert% received b% the b% virtue of said 3rit. Costs a)ainst the privaterespondents.

SO ORDERED.

"arvasa, C.J., -o&ero and :apunan, JJ., %on%ur.

G. E?ercise o2 Ne'4i'ence (Art +;#


12/146

12

H. Mist,@e ,n- ,i


13/146

13

e are not in accord, therefore, of 5si%6 the )round of the trial court:sdisissal of the coplaint, althou)h 3e confor to the trial court:sdisposition of the case its disissal.

IN VIE O" 2AE "OREOIN considerations, there bein) no errorcoitted b% the lo3er court in disissin) the plaintiff*appellant:scoplaint, the ppeals and as7 this Court to a3ard her actual or copensator% daa)esas 3ell as oral daa)es.

e a)ree 3ith the appeals 3ho held that no valid 3aiver of hercause of action had been ade b% petitioner. 2he relevant lan)ua)e of the (oint >ffidavita% be =uoted a)ain4

2hat 2e are no loner interested to file a %o&plaint, %ri&inal or %ivilaainst t!e said driver and o2ner of the said 2haes, because it 3as anaccident and the said driver and o3ner of the said 2haes have )one tothe e!tent of helpin) us to be treated upon our in 3aiver, to be valid and effective, ust in the first place be couched in clear andune=uivocal ters 3hich leave no doubt as to the intention of a person to )ive upa ri)ht or benefit 3hich le)all% pertains to hi. !> 3aiver a% not casuall% beattributed to a person 3hen the ters thereof do not e!plicitl% and clearl%evidence an intent to abandon a ri)ht vested in such person.

2he de)ree of e!plicitness 3hich this Court has re=uired in purported 3aivers isillustrated in =epes and usaya v. a&ar 3xpress ;ransit 5supra6, 3here the Court inreadin) and rell that said docuent proves is thatt!ey expresseda >desire> to &a$e t!e 2aiver 0 2!i%! oviously is not t!e sa&e as&a$in an a%tual 2aiver of t!eir ri!t. + 2aiver of t!e $ind invo$ed yappellant &ust e %lear and unequivo%al 5Decision of the Supree Courtof Spain of (ul% @, +@@/6 2!i%! is not t!e %ase of t!e one relied uponin t!is appeal. 5Ephasis supplied6

If 3e appl% the standard used in =epes and usaya,3e 3ould have to concludethat the ters of the (oint >ffidavit in the instant case cannot be re)arded as a3aiver cast in ?clear and une=uivocal? ters. Moreover, the circustances under3hich the (oint >ffidavit 3as si)ned b% petitioner atchalian need to beconsidered. Petitioner testified that she 3as still reelin) fro the effects of thevehicular accident, havin) been in the hospital for onl% three da%s, 3hen thepurported 3aiver in the for of the (oint >ffidavit 3as presented to her forsi)nin)8 that 3hile readin) the sae, she e!perienced di$$iness but that, seein)the other passen)ers 3ho had also suffered inffidavit in its entiret%. Considerin)these circustances there appears substantial doubt 3hether petitionerunderstood full% the iport of the (oint >ffidavit 5prepared b% or at the instance ofprivate respondent6 she si)ned and 3hether she actuall% intended thereb% to3aive an% ri)ht of action a)ainst private respondent.

"inall%, because 3hat is involved here is the liabilit% of a coon carrier for in


14/146


15/146

15

the Court of >ppeals, a findin) entitled to due respect fro this Court. Petitioneratchalian has not subitted an% basis for overturnin) this findin) of fact, and she a%not be a3arded daa)es on the basis of speculation or con person is entitled to the ph%sical inte)rit% of his or her bod%8 if thatinte)rit% is violated or diinished, actual in scar,especiall% one on the face of the 3oan, resultin) fro the infliction of in


16/146

16

I. D,=n&= A8sB&e In&ri,

G.R. No. *"!; 1&40 3) **

NATIONAL POER CORPORATION ,n- 6EN1AMIN CHAE>) petitioners,vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS) RICARDO CRU>) DOMINGO CRU>) FERNANDO CRU>)LEOPOLDO CRU>) MARIA CRU>) MAURA MARCIAL) 1UAN PALAD) NICANORPALAD) >OSIMO PALAD) NICASIO SAN PEDRO) FELIMON SANTOS) ISAIAS

SANTOS) 1EREMIAS SANTOS) ,n- 1OSE SANTOS) respondents.

NOCON) J.:

&efore Bs is a petition for revie3 on %ertiorariinstituted b% the National Po3erCorporation 5NPC6 and &enppeals proul)ated on Septeber +@, +9. 2he appellate court affiredin totothe decision in Civil Case No.SM*+110 of the Re)ional 2rial Court of Malolos, &ulacan, &ranch 'VI, 3hich a3ardeddaa)es, interest, attorne%:s fees and liti)ation e!penses a)ainst petitioners in thefollo3in) aounts 3ith interest at +0per annu&fro the date of filin) of the coplaintuntil full% paid4

Ricardo Cru$ P 00,@99.99osio Palad 0,099.99Isaias 2. Santos 1,199.99"elion Santos 0,99.99

Maura 2. Marcial ,[email protected])o Cru$ +0+,99.99Heopoldo Cru$ 0+,999.99Maria R. Cru$ ;,999.99Nicanor Palad 0@,/[email protected] San Pedro +-,19.99(uan Palad 0/,-99.99(ose 2. Santos ;@,+9.99

(ereias 2. Santos ++,199.99"ernando Cru$ 11,/@9.99

2he petitioners 3ere further ordered to pa% the private respondents ;9 of the aountspa%able b% the as attorne%:s fees and P+9,999.99 as liti)ation e!penses, and to pa%the costs of suit.

It appears that in the earl% ornin) hours of October 0/, +/@, at the hei)ht of t%phoon?Gadin)?, a assive flood covered the to3ns near >n)at Da, particularl% the to3n ofNor$a)ara%, causin) several deaths and the loss and destruction of houses, fars,plants, 3or7in) anials and other properties of the people residin) near the >n)at River.Private respondents recalled that on the said da%, the% 3ere a3a7ened b% the sound ofrapa)in) 3ater all around the. 2he 3ater cae s3iftl% and stron)l% that before the%could do an%thin) to save their belon)in)s, their houses had suber)ed, soe even

s3ept a3a% b% the stron) current. > nuber of people 3ere able to save their lives onl%b% clibin) trees.

Private respondents blaed the sudden rush of 3ater to the rec7less and iprudentopenin) of all the three 5;6 flood)ates of the >n)at Da spill3a%, 3ithout prior 3arnin) tothe people livin) near or 3ithin the vicinit% of theda. 3

Petitioners denied private respondents: alle)ations and, b% 3a% of defense, contendedthat the% have aintained the 3ater in the >n)at Da at a safe level and that theopenin) of the spill3a%s 3as done )raduall% and after all precautionar% easures hadbeen ta7en. Petitioner NPC further contended that it had al3a%s e!ercised the dili)enceof a )ood father in the selection of its officials and eplo%ees and in their supervision. Italso claied that 3ritten 3arnin)s 3ere earlier sent to the to3ns concerned. >t the tiet%phoon ?Gadin)? hit &ulacan 3ith its torrential rain, a )reat volue of flood 3ater flo3edinto the da:s reservoir necessitatin) the release of the 3ater therein in order to preventthe da fro collapsin) and causin) the loss of lives and treendous daa)e tolivestoc7 and properties.

Petitioners further contended that there 3as no direct causal relationship bet3een thealle)ed daa)es suffered b% the respondents and the acts and oissions attributed tothe forer. 2hat it 3as the respondents 3ho assued the ris7 of residin) near the >n)atRiver, and even assuin) that respondents suffered daa)es, the cause 3as due to afortuitous event and such daa)es are of the nature and character of da&nu& asqueins assi)nent of errors of the appellate court, petitioners raised the follo3in)4


17/146

17

5a6 IN AOHDIN 2A>2 2AE RBHIN IN J@+" F. "+:P/( " V. C@-; F+PP3+(,!IS >PPHIC>&HE 2O 2AE INS2>N2 C>SE BNDER AICA PE2I2IONERS>RE HI>&HE EVEN 2AOBA 2AE COMIN O" > 2PAOON >S F-C3 +J3@-38

5b6 IN NO2 AOHDIN 2A>2 2AE IVIN O" 2AE RI22EN NO2ICE O" >RNIN& PE2I2IONERS >&SOHVED 2AEM "ROM HI>&IHI28

5c6 IN NO2 AOHDIN 2A>2 >N D>M>E SB""ERED & PRIV>2E RESPONDEN2S>S D+"@ +#@3 /"J@-/+8 and

5d6 IN NO2 >>RDIN 2AE COBN2ERCH>IM O" PE2I2IONERS "OR >22ORNE:S"EES >ND E'PENSES O" HI2I>2ION.

e find the petition devoid of erit.e do not a)ree 3ith the petitioners that the decision handed do3n in Juan F. "a$pil ons, supra, is not applicable to the present case. 2he doctrine laid do3n in the saidcase is still )ood la3, as far as the concurrent liabilit% of an obli)or in case of a for%e&article ++/9 of the Civil Code "3hich results in lossor daa)e.

Petitioners contended that unli7e in Juan F. "a$pil ons, there 3as no privit% ofcontract bet3een herein petitioners and private respondents. 2he% further alle)ed thatthe% o3ed no specific dut% to private respondents in the sae 3a% that the architect of abuildin) o3ed a specific dut% to its o3ner. Petitioners, ho3ever, failed to consider thateven if there 3as no contractual relation bet3een theselves and private respondents,

the% are still liable under the la3 on quasideli%t. >rticle 0+/- of the Civil Code e!plicitl%provides ?3hoever b% act or oission causes daa)e to another there bein) fault orne)li)ence is obli)ed to pa% for the daa)e done.?

Neither can petitioners escape liabilit% b% invo7in)for%e &act of od orfor%e&as a )eneral rule, no

person shall be responsible for those events 3hich could not be foreseen or 3hichthou)h foreseen, 3ere inevitable. +

Ao3ever, the principle ebodied in the act of od doctrine strictl% re=uires that the actust be occasioned solel% b% the violence of nature. Auan intervention is to bee!cluded fro creatin) or enterin) into the cause of the ischief. hen the effect isfound to be in part the result of the participation of an, 3hether due to his activeintervention or ne)lect or failure to act, the 3hole occurrence is then huani$ed andreoved fro the rules applicable to the acts of od. *

So )enerall% it cannot be said that daa)e, inn)at Daposed in a situation of such nature as that of t%phoon ?Gadin)?. 2herepresentative of the ?P>*>S>? 3ho testified in these proceedin)s,(usto I)lesias, (r., stated that based on their records the rainfall onOctober 0- and 0/, +/@ is classified onl% as oderate, and could nothave caused flash floods. Ae testified that flash floods e!ceeds 19illieters per hour and lasts for at least t3o 506 hours. Ae stated thatt%phoon ?anin)? 3hich occurred on October / to +, +/@ )ave a uchheavier rainfall than ?Gadin)?, and so did other previous t%phoons.

2his 3as corroborated b% the testionies of private respondents, ost of 3hohave lived in the area all their lives, but had never before e!perienced suchfloodin) as 3ould have placed the on alert, even durin) previous stron)ert%phoons such as ?Dadin)? and ?olin).?

hat ore, 3hen the evidence sho3s that as earl% as October 01, +/@ the ne3spapershad announced the e!pected occurrence of a po3erful t%phoon code*naed ?Gadin)?. On October 0-, +/@, &ulletin 2oda% had as its headline the coin) of the t%phoon. 3


18/146

18

Despite these announceents, the 3ater level in the da 3as aintained at itsa!iu fro October 0+, until idni)ht of October 0-, +/@. !

>t 0+99 hrs. of October 0-, +/@, NPC started to open the three flood)atessiultaneousl% fro + eter to @ eters at 9+99 hrs. of October 0/, +/@, until allflood)ates 3ere opened to the a!iu of + to +.1 eters b% 9-99 hrs. of the saeda%. 7

2his 3as also the findin) of the court a quo 3hich e =uote4

2he defendants contended that the release of 3ater had been ?)radual?.2he lo3er court did not find this true. 2he e!hibit presented b% thedefendants 5E!hs. >> and &&*06 sho3 that on October 0-, +/@ there3as ver% little openin) of the spill3a%s, ran)in) fro + eter to 0 eters.Ao3ever, fro idni)ht or fro the first hours of October 0/, +/@ theopenin) of all the three 5;6 spill3a%s started at 1 eters and s3iftl% 3entas far up as + eters. >s observed correctl% b% the trial court had theopenin) of all the three 5;6 spill3a%s been ade earlier and )raduall%,there 3ould have been no need to open the sae suddenl%.

hat ade the situation 3orse 3as that the openin) of the spill3a%s 3asade at the unhol% hours 3hen residents 3ere asleep. 2he plaintiffs alltestified that the% 3ere never )iven an% 3arnin) that the spill3a%s 3ouldbe opened to that e!tent. . . . "

It has been held in several cases that 3hen the ne)li)ence of a person concurs 3ith anact of od producin) a loss, such person is not e!ept fro liabilit% b% sho3in) that theiediate cause of the daa)e 3as the act of od. 2o be e!ept he ust be free froan% previous ne)li)ence or isconduct b% 3hich the loss or daa)e a% have beenoccasioned. %

2hus, e cannot )ive credence to petitioners: third assi)nent of error that the daa)e

caused b% the openin) of the da 3as in the nature of da&nu& asque ins testified to b% driver Heonardo arcia of the NPC,he 3as instructed b% Chave$ to )ive notice ?to an% personnel of the unicipalit% KsicL oreven the policeen of the unicipalities concerned re)ardin) the release of 3ater fro

the reservoir.? ;Ais instructions did not specif% the unicipal officer 3ho should receivethe notice, but that priorit% ust be )iven to the police. 2hus, copies of the notices3ere )iven to Pat. Carillo of Nor$a)ara%, Cicero Castro, unicipal eplo%ee of >n)at,Pat. (aie Nicholas of &ustos, Cpl. (osefino He)aspi of &ali3a), Pat. Hu$viin Marianoof Plaridel and Pat. Dantes Manu7du7 of Calupit.

>s observed b% the Court of >ppeals4

Clearl%, the notices 3ere not delivered, or even addressed to responsibleofficials of the unicipalities concerned 3ho could have disseinated the3arnin) properl%. 2he% 3ere delivered to ordinar% eplo%ees andpoliceen. >s it happened, the said notices do not appear to havereached the people concerned, 3hich are the residents beside the >n)atRiver. 2he plaintiffs in this case definitel% did not receive an% such3arnin). Indeed, the ethods b% 3hich the defendants alle)edl% sent thenotice or 3arnin) 3as so ineffectual that the% cannot clai, as the% do intheir second assi)nent of error, that the sendin) of said notice hasabsolved the fro liabilit%.

AERE"ORE, findin) no reversible error in the Decision appealed fro, the sae ishereb% affired in toto,3ith cost a)ainst petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

"arvasa, C.J., Paras, Padilla and -ealado, JJ., %on%ur.


19/146

19

1. E=er'enc0 R&4e

G.R. No. L$"+; 1&40 ") **

GEORGE MC9EE ,n- ARACELI 9OH MC9EE) petitioners,vs.INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT) 1AIME TA:AG ,n- ROSALINDA MANALO)respondents.

G.R. No. L$"+;3 1&40 ") **

CARMEN DA:RIT 9OH) LETICIA 9OH) 1ULIETA 9OH TU5UERO) ARACELI 9OHMC9EE) ANTONIO 9OH ,n- ELI>A6ETH 9OH TURLA) petitioners,vs.INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT) 1AIME TA:AG ,n- ROSALINDA MANALO)respondents.

DAIDE) JR., J.:

Petitioners ur)e this Court to revie3 and reverse the Resolution of the Court of >ppealsin C.>.*.R. CV Nos. -99*+, proul)ated on ; >pril +@, 3hich set aside itsprevious Decision dated 0 Noveber +@; reversin) the Decision of the trial court3hich disissed petitioners: coplaints in Civil Case No. // and Civil Case No. /@of the then Court of "irst Instance 5no3 Re)ional 2rial Court6 of Papan)a entitled?Caren Da%rit Goh, Heticia Goh, (ulieta Goh 2u=uero, >raceli Goh McGee and Eli$abethGoh 2urla vs. (aie 2a%a) and Rosalinda Manalo,? and ?eor)e McGee and >raceli Goh

McGee vs. (aie 2a%a) and Rosalinda Manalo,? respectivel%, and )ranted the privaterespondents: counterclai for oral daa)es, attorne%:s fees and liti)ation e!penses.

2he said civil cases for daa)es based on quasideli%t3ere filed as a result of avehicular accident 3hich led to the deaths of (ose Goh, Gi Goh McGee and Hoida&ondoc and caused ph%sical inraceli Goh McGee.

Petitioners in .R. No. -@+90, parents of the inors eor)e Goh McGee, ChristopherGoh McGee and the deceased Gi Goh McGee, 3ere the plaintiffs in Civil Case No./@, 3hile petitioner Caren Da%rit Goh and her co*petitioners in .R. No. -@+9;, 3hoare the 3ife and children, respectivel%, of the late (ose Goh, 3ere the plaintiffs in CivilCase No. //. Bpon the other hand, private respondents are the o3ners of the car)otruc7 3hich fi)ured in the ishap8 a certain Ruben alan) 3as the driver of the truc7 at

the tie of the accident.

2he antecedent facts are not disputed.

&et3een nine and ten o:cloc7 in the ornin) of @ (anuar% +//, in Pulon) Pulo &rid)ealon) Mac>rthur Ai)h3a%, bet3een >n)eles Cit% and San "ernando, Papan)a, ahead*on*collision too7 place bet3een an International car)o truc7, Hoadstar, 3ith PlateNo. R"+0*2 Philippines :/- o3ned b% private respondents, and driven b% Rubenalan), and a "ord Escort car bearin) Plate No. S0*@19 Papan)a :/- driven b% (oseGoh. 2he collision resulted in the deaths of (ose Goh, Gi Goh McGee and Hoida&ondoc, and ph%sical inraceli Goh McGee, all passen)ers of the "ord Escort.

(ose Goh 3as the father of petitioner >raceli Goh McGee, the other of inors eor)e,Christopher and Gi Goh McGee. Hoida &ondoc, on the other hand, 3as the bab% sitterof one and a half %ear old Gi. >t the tie of the collision, Gi 3as seated on the lap ofHoida &ondoc 3ho 3as at the front passen)er:s seat of the car 3hile >raceli and her t3o506 sons 3ere seated at the car:s bac7 seat.

Iediatel% before the collision, the car)o truc7, 3hich 3as loaded 3ith t3o hundred50996 cavans of rice 3ei)hin) about +9,999 7ilos, 3as travelin) south3ard fro >n)elesCit% to San "ernando Papan)a, and 3as bound for Manila. 2he "ord Escort, on theother hand, 3as on its 3a% to >n)eles Cit% fro San "ernando. hen the northboundcar 3as about 5+96 eters a3a% fro the southern approach of the brid)e, t3o 506 bo%ssuddenl% darted fro the ri)ht side of the road and into the lane of the car. 2he bo%s3ere ovin) bac7 and forth, unsure of 3hether to cross all the 3a% to the other side orturn bac7. (ose Goh ble3 the horn of the car, s3erved to the left and entered the lane ofthe truc78 he then s3itched on the headli)hts of the car, applied the bra7es and thereafter


20/146

20

attepted to return to his lane. &efore he could do so, his car collided 3ith the truc7. 2hecollision occurred in the lane of the truc7, 3hich 3as the opposite lane, on the saidbrid)e.

2he incident 3as iediatel% reported to the police station in >n)eles Cit%8conse=uentl%, a tea of police officers 3as forth3ith dispatched to conduct an on thespot investi)ation. In the s7etch prepared b% the investi)atin) officers, the brid)e isdescribed to be si!t% 5-96 ?footsteps? lon) and fourteen 5+6 ?footsteps? 3ide seven5/6 ?footsteps? fro the center line to the inner ed)e of the side 3al7 on both sides. Pulon) Pulo &rid)e, 3hich spans a dr% broo7, is ade of concrete 3ith soft shouldersand concrete railin)s on both sides about three 5;6 feet hi)h.

2he s7etch of the investi)atin) officer discloses that the ri)ht rear portion of the car)otruc7 3as t3o 506 ?footsteps? fro the ed)e of the ri)ht side3al7, 3hile its left front

portion 3as touchin) the center line of the brid)e, 3ith the sashed front side of the carrestin) on its front buper. 2he truc7 3as about si!teen 5+-6 ?footsteps? a3a% fro thenorthern end of the brid)e 3hile the car 3as about thirt%*si! 5;-6 ?footsteps? fro theopposite end. S7id ar7s produced b% the ri)ht front tire of the truc7 easured nine 56?footsteps?, 3hile s7id ar7s produced b% the left front tire easured five 516 ?footsteps.?2he t3o 506 rear tires of the truc7, ho3ever, produced no s7id ar7s.

In his stateent to the investi)atin) police officers iediatel% after the accident, alan)aditted that he 3as travelin) at thirt% 5;96 iles 5@ 7iloeters6 per hour.

>s a conse=uence of the collision, t3o 506 cases, Civil Case No. // and No. /@,3ere filed on ;+ (anuar% +// before the then Court of "irst Instance of Papan)a and3ere raffled to &ranch III and &ranch V of the said court, respectivel%. In the first, hereinpetitioners in .R. No. -@+9; pra%ed for the a3ard of P+0,999.99 as indenit% for thedeath of (ose Goh, P+19,999.99 as oral daa)es, P-9,999.99 as e!eplar% daa)es,P+9,999.99 for liti)ation e!penses, P-,999.99 for burial e!penses, P;,-19.99 for theburial lot and P,199.99 for the tob, plus attorne%:s fees. 3In the second case,petitioners in .R. No. -@+90 pra%ed for the follo3in)4 5a6 in connection 3ith the death ofGi McGee, the su of P+0,999.99 as death benefit, P;,+19.99 for funeral services,P;,-19.99 for the ceeter% lot, P;,999.99 for the tob, P19,999.99 as oral daa)es,P+9,999.99 as e!eplar% daa)es and P0,999.99 as iscellaneous daa)es8 5b6 in thecase of >raceli Goh McGee, in connection 3ith the serious ph%sical in


21/146

21

>ntonio Goh, and offered several docuentar% e!hibits. Bpon the other hand, privaterespondents presented as 3itnesses Ruben alan), enaida Solian, (aie 2a%a) andRoan Da%rit.

In the criinal case, the prosecution presented as 3itnesses Mrs. >raceli McGee, SaludSaia, Pfc. "ernando Nua), Dr. Raon Panlilio, Dr. Robert "it$)erald, Dr. Robertouson, Dr. Aector, Blanda%, Pfc. &eni)no de Heon, Marina &olos, Priitivo Parel, Ro)elioPineda, &enito Caraan and Eu)enio 2anhueco, and offered several docuentar%e!hibits. 3Bpon the other hand, the defense presented the accused Ruben alan),Huciano Pun$alan, enaida Solian and Roan Da%rit, and offered docuentar%e!hibits. !

On + October +@9, (ud)e Capulon) rendered a decision a)ainst the accused Rubenalan) in the aforesaid criinal case. 2he dispositive portion of the decision reads as

follo3s4

AERE"ORE, in vie3 of the fore)oin), rticle ;-1 of the Revised Penal Code and indeterinate sentence la3,this Court, iposes upon said accused Ruben alan) the penalt% of si!5-6 onths of arresto &ayoras iniu to t3o 506 %ears, four 56 onthsand one 5+6 da% ofprision %orre%%ionalas a!iu8 the accused isfurther sentenced to pa% and indenif% the heirs of Hoida &ondoc theaount of P+0,999.99 as indenit% for her death8 to reiburse the heirsof Hoida &ondoc the aount of P0,999.99 representin) the funerale!penses8 to pa% the heirs of Hoida &ondoc the aount of P09,999.99representin) her loss of incoe8 to indenif% and pa% the heirs of thedeceased (ose Goh the value of the car in the aount of P1;,+9.1,and to pa% the costs. 7

2he aforecited decision 3as proul)ated onl% on +/ Noveber +@98 on the sae da%,counsel for petitioners filed 3ith &ranch III of the court 3here the t3o 506 civil cases3ere pendin) a anifestation to that effect and attached thereto a cop% of thedecision. "

Bpon the other hand, (ud)e Mario Castaeda, (r. disissed the t3o 506 civil cases on +0Noveber +@9 and a3arded the private respondents oral daa)es, e!eplar%daa)es and attorne%:s fees. %2he dispositive portion of the said decision reads asfollo3s4

AERE"ORE, findin) the preponderance of evidence to be in favor ofthe defendants and a)ainst the plaintiffs, these cases are hereb% orderedDISMISSED 3ith costs a)ainst the plaintiffs. 2he defendants had proventheir counter*clai, thru evidences 5si%6 presented and unrebutted.Aence, the% are hereb% a3arded oral and e!eplar% daa)es in theaount of P+99,999.99 plus attorne%:s fee of P+1,999.99 and liti)atione!penses for 5si%6 P0,999.99. 2he actual daa)es claied for 5si%6 b%the defendants is 5si%6 hereb% disissin) for lac7 of proof to that effect5si%6. +

> cop% of the decision 3as sent b% re)istered ail to the petitioners on 0@ Noveber+@9 and 3as received on 0 Deceber +@9. *

>ccused Ruben alan) appealed the ppeals.

2he appeal 3as doc7eted as C.>.*.R. &l). 0/-*CR and 3as assi)ned to the court:s2hird Division. Plaintiffs in Civil Cases Nos. // and /@ li7e3ise separatel% appealedthe +0 Noveber +@9 decision to the appellate court. 2he appeals 3ere doc7eted asC.>.*.R. No. -9+*R and C.>.*.R. No. -99*R, respectivel%, and 3ere assi)ned tothe "ourth Civil Cases Division.

On October +@0, the respondent Court proul)ated its decision ;in C.>.*.R. &l).0/-*CR affirin) the conviction of alan). 2he dispositive portion of the decisionreads4

D+'/( D/;, an !atol na pa$sa n nariton pa!a!aol ay +&inpinatitiay sa $anyan $auuan. +n na!a!aol pa rin anpinaaayad n uol n pa!a!aol.

> otion for reconsideration of the decision 3as denied b% the respondent Court in its:apasiya!anproul)ated on 01 Noveber +@0. > petition for its revie3 33as filed3ith this Court8 said petition 3as subse=uentl% denied. > otion for its reconsideration3as denied 3ith finalit% in the Resolution of 09 >pril +@;. !

On 0 Noveber +@;, respondent Court, b% then 7no3n as the Interediate >ppellateCourt, proul)ated its consolidated decision in >.C.*.R. CV Nos. -99 and -9+, 7the dispositive portion of 3hich reads4

AERE"ORE, the decision appealed fro it hereb% reversed and setaside and another one is rendered, orderin) defendants*appellees to pa%plaintiffs*appellants as follo3s4


22/146

22

"or the death of (ose Goh4

P 19,999.99 as oral daa)esP +0,999.99 as death indenit%P +-,999.99 for the lot and tob 5E!hs. B and B*+6P ,999.99 e!penses for holdin) a 3a7e 5p. , tsn >pril+, +/6P 19.99 for the cas7et 5E!h. M6P ;/1.99 for the vault services 5E!hs. V and V*+6

"or the death of Gi Goh McGee4

P 19,999.99 as oral daa)esP +0,999.99 as death indenit%P +,999.99 for the purchase of the burial lot 5E!h. M6P 19.99 for funeral services 5E!h. M*+6P ;/1.99 for vault services 5E!hs. V and V*+6

"or the ph%sical inns3ers the defense of havin) e!ercised the dili)ence of a )ood father of a fail%in selectin) and supervisin) the said eplo%ee. %2his conclusion of rec7lessiprudence is based on the follo3in)findin)s of fact4

In the face of these diaetricall% opposed H COBR2 ERRED AEN I2 AEHD 2AE 5si%6 DRIVER O" 2AE2RBCG S2OPPED AIS 2RBCG &HE AIS AORN SI2CAED ON AISAE>DHIA2S >ND COBHD NO2 SERVE 2O 2AE RIA2.

Supportive of plaintiffs: version, principal 3itness >raceli Goh McGee testified thus4

# hat happened after that, as %ou approached thebrid)eJ

> hen 3e 3ere approachin) the brid)e, t3o 506 bo%stried to cross the ri)ht lane on the ri)ht side of thehi)h3a% )oin) to San "ernando. M% father, 3ho is 5si%6the driver of the car tried to avoid the t3o 506 bo%s 3ho


23/146

23

3ere crossin), he ble3 his horn and s3erved to the left toavoid hittin) the t3o 506 bo%s. e noticed the truc7, hes3itched on the headli)hts to 3arn the truc7 driver, toslo3 do3n to )ive us the ri)ht of 3a% to coe bac7 to ourri)ht lane.

# Did the truc7 slo3 do3nJ

> No, sir, it did not, >fter avoidin) the t3o 506 bo%s, the car tried to )o bac7

to the ri)ht lane since the truc7 is 5si%6 coin), % fatherstepped on the bra7es and all 3hat 5si%6 I heard is thesound of ipact 5si%6, sir. 5tsn, pp. 1*-, (ul% 00, +//68 or5E!hibit ?O? in these Civil Cases6.

!!! !!! !!!

# Mrs. ho3 did %ou 7no3 that the truc7 driven b% theherein accused, Ruben alan) did not reduce its speedbefore the actual ipact of collision 5si%6 as %ou narratedin this E!hibit ?+,? ho3 did %ou 7no3 5si%6J

> It ppellants:&rief6.

Plaintiffs: version 3as successfull% corroborated to Our satisfaction b% the follo3in) facts

and circustances4

+. >n ipartial e%e*3itness to the ishap, Eu)enio 2anhueco, declaredthat the truc7 stopped onl% 3hen it had alread% collided 3ith the car4

!!! !!! !!!

2anhueco repeated the sae testion% durin) the hearin) in the criinalcase4

!!! !!! !!!

2anhueco could 5si%6 not be ta))ed as an accoodation 3itnessbecause he 3as one of the first to arrive at the scene of the accident. >sa atter of fact, he brou)ht one of the in*.R. No. 99;+9*CR, (an.;+, +-06.

ith respect to Da%rit, e can not help suspectin) 5 si%6 that he is anaccoodation 3itness. Ae did not )o to the succor of the inppellants: &rief6. 2his contention of appellants 3ascopletel% passed susilen%ioor 3as not refuted b% appellees in theirbrief. E!hibit 0 is one of the e!hibits not included in the record. >ccordin)to the 2able of Contents subitted b% the court belo3, said E!hibit 0 3asnot subitted b% defendants*appellees. In this li)ht, it is not far*fetched tosurise that alan):s clai that he stopped 3as an eleventh*hourdesperate attept to e!culpate hiself fro iprisonent and daa)es.

;. alan) divul)ed that he stopped after seein) the car about +9 etersa3a%4

>22. SO22O4

# Do I understand fro %our testion% that inspite of thefact that %ou aditted that the road is strai)ht and %ou


24/146


25/146

25

C>SE AERE 2AE DRIVER O" 2AE 2RBCG INVOHVED IN 2AE>CCIDEN2 >S INDIC2ED.

III

. . . P>2EN2H COMMI22ED R>VE >&BSE O" DISCRE2ION >NDM>DE > MISHE>DIN PRONOBNCEMEN2, AEN I2 AEHD4 ?I2 IS2ABS INCBM&EN2 BPON 2AE PH>IN2I""S*>PPEHH>N2S5>PPEHHEES RONH MEN2IONED IN 2AE RESOHB2ION6 2OPROVE 2AEIR >HHE>2IONS 2A>2 2AE PRO'IM>2E C>BSE O"2AE >CCIDEN2 >S 2AE NEHIENCE O" PRIV>2ERESPONDEN2S: DRIVER.

IV

. . . COMMI22ED >NO2AER RIEVIOBS 5si%6 ERROR8 COMMI22EDR>VE >&BSE O" DISCRE2ION >ND CI2ED >NO2AER C>SE AICAIS CHE>RH IN>PPHIC>&HE 2O 2AESE C>SES.

V

. . . COMMI22ED > P>2EN2 ERROR >ND R>VEH >&BSED I2SDISCRE2ION IN >DOP2IN 2AE "INDINS O" 2AE 2RI>H COBR2AICA >RE CHE>RH ERRONEOBS >ND CON2R>R 2O 2AEEVIDENCE "OBND IN 2AE RECORDS, SPECI>HH 2AE 5si%6 >RECON2R>R 2O 2AE >DMI22ED ">C2S >ND (BDICI>H >DMISSIONSM>DE & 2AE PRIV>2E RESPONDEN2S: DRIVER.

VI

. . . E'CEEDED I2S (BRISDIC2ION, COMMI22ED R>VE >&BSE O"DISCRE2ION >ND R>VEH ERRED AEN I2 >>RDED D>M>ES

2O 2AE PRIV>2E RESPONDEN2S AEN S>ID >>RD IS NO2SBPPOR2ED & EVIDENCE, IN 2AE RECORDS, >ND S>ID >>RDIS NO2 >HHOED & H> >ND 2AE CONSIS2EN2 DECISIONS O"2AIS AONOR>&HE COBR2.

VII

. . . E'CEEDED I2S (BRISDIC2ION, COMMI22ED R>VE >&BSE O"DISCRE2ION >ND R>VEH ERRED AEN I2 ERRONEOBSH SE2

>SIDE I2S DECISION >>RDIN D>M>ES 2O PE2I2IONERSAICA IS CHE>RH IN >CCORD>NCE I2A 2AE EVIDENCE, 2AEH> >ND (BRISPRBDENCE REH>2IVE 2O 2AE >>RD O"D>M>ES. 3

In the Resolution of +0 Septeber +@, e re=uired private respondents to Coenton the petition. 3>fter the said Coent 333as filed, petitioners subitted a Repl% 3!thereto8 this Court then )ave due course to the instant petitions and re=uired petitionersto file their &rief, 373hich the% accordin)l% coplied 3ith.

2here is erit in the petition. &efore e ta7e on the ain tas7 of dissectin) thear)uents and counter*ar)uents, soe observations on the procedural vicissitudes ofthese cases are in order.

Civil Cases Nos. // and /@, 3hich 3ere for the recover% of civil liabilit% arisin) froa quasideli%tunder >rticle 0+/- in relation to >rticle 0+@9 of the Civil Code, 3ere filedahead of Criinal Case No. ;/1+. Civil Case No. /@ 3as eventuall% consolidated 3ithCivil Case No. // for rticle ;; in relation to>rticle 0+// of the Civil Code, such as the civil cases in this case, cannot beconsolidated 3ith the criinal case. Indeed, such consolidation could have been farthestfro their inds as >rticle ;; itself e!pressl% provides that the ?civil action shall proceedindependentl% of the criinal prosecution, and shall re=uire onl% a preponderance ofevidence.? &e that as it a%, there 3as then no le)al ipedient a)ainst suchconsolidation. Section +, Rule ;+ of the Rules of Court, 3hich see7s to avoid aultiplicit% of suits, )uard a)ainst oppression and abuse, prevent dela%s, clearcon)ested doc7ets to siplif% the 3or7 of the trial court, or in short, attain


26/146

26

Het it be stressed, ho3ever, that the s e held in Dionisio vs. +lvendia, 3+the responsibilit% arisin) fro fault or ne)li)encein a quasideli%tis entirel% separate and distinct fro the civil liabilit% arisin) frone)li)ence under the Penal Code. >nd, as ore concretel% stated in the concurrin)opinion of (ustice (.&.H. Re%es, ?in the case of independent civil actions under the ne3Civil Code, the result of the criinal case, 3hether ac=uittal or conviction, 3ould beentirel% irrelevant to the civil action.? 3*In alta vs. De Veyra and P"# vs. Purisi&a,!;this Court stated4

. . . It sees perfectl% reasonable to conclude that the civil actions

entioned in >rticle ;;, peritted in the sae anner to be filedseparatel% fro the criinal case, a% proceed siilarl% reardless oft!e result of t!e %ri&inal %ase.

Indeed, 3hen the la3 has allo3ed a civil case related to a criinal case,to be filed separatel% and to proceed independentl% even durin) thependenc% of the latter case, the intention is patent to a7e the court:sdisposition of the criinal case of no effect 3hatsoever on the separatecivil case. 2his ust be so because the offenses specified in >rticle ;;are of such a nature, unli7e other offenses not entioned, that the% a%be ade the sub


27/146

27

slo3 do3n to )ive us the ri)ht of 3a% to coe bac7 to ourri)ht lane.

# Did the truc7 slo3 do3nJ

> No sir, it did not, >fter avoidin) the t3o 506 bo%s, the car tried to )o bac7to the ri)ht lane since the truc7 is 5si%6 coin), % fatherstepped on the bra7es and all 3hat 5si%6 I heard is thesound of ipact 5si%6, sir. !"

Aer credibilit% and testion% reained intact even durin) cross e!aination. (ose Goh:sentr% into the lane of the truc7 3as necessar% in order to avoid 3hat 3as, in his ind atthat tie, a )reater peril death or inhern v. Ore)on2elephone Co., ;1 Pac. 1 5+@6.

On the basis of the fore)oin) definition, the test of ne)li)ence and the facts obtainin) inthis case, it is anifest that no ne)li)ence could be iputed to (ose Goh. >n% reasonableand ordinar% prudent an 3ould have tried to avoid runnin) over the t3o bo%s b%s3ervin) the car a3a% fro 3here the% 3ere even if this 3ould ean enterin) theopposite lane. >voidin) such iediate peril 3ould be the natural course to ta7eparticularl% 3here the vehicle in the opposite lane 3ould be several eters a3a% andcould ver% 3ell slo3 do3n, ove to the side of the road and )ive 3a% to the oncoin)car. Moreover, under 3hat is 7no3n as the eer)enc% rule, ?one 3ho suddenl% findshiself in a place of dan)er, and is re=uired to act 3ithout tie to consider the besteans that a% be adopted to avoid the ipendin) dan)er, is not )uilt% of ne)li)ence, ifhe fails to adopt 3hat subse=uentl% and upon reflection a% appear to have been abetter ethod, unless the eer)enc% in 3hich he finds hiself is brou)ht about b% hiso3n ne)li)ence.? !*

Considerin) the sudden intrusion of the t3o 506 bo%s into the lane of the car, e find that(ose Goh adopted the best eans possible in the )iven situation to avoid hittin) the.>ppl%in) the above test, therefore, it is clear that he 3as not )uilt% of ne)li)ence.

In an% case, assuin), aruendothat (ose Goh is ne)li)ent, it cannot be said that hisne)li)ence 3as the pro!iate cause of the collision. Pro!iate cause has been definedas4

. . . that cause, 3hich, in natural and continuous se=uence, unbro7en b%an% efficient intervenin) cause, produces the innd ore coprehensivel%, thepro!iate le)al cause is that actin) first and producin) the in


28/146

28

3ith its iediate predecessor, the final event in the chain iediatel%effectin) the in/ sa2 it stopped )si%* 2!en it !as )si%* already %ollided2it! t!e %ar and it 2as already &otionless . 5tsn. ;+, >pril+, +/8 Ephasis Supplied6. 5p. 0/, >ppellants: &rief6. 77

Clearl%, therefore, it 3as the truc7 driver:s subse=uent ne)li)ence in failin) to ta7e theproper easures and de)ree of care necessar% to avoid the collision 3hich 3as thepro!iate cause of the resultin) accident.

Even if (ose Goh 3as indeed ne)li)ent, the doctrine of last clear chance finds applicationhere. Hast clear chance is a doctrine in the la3 of torts 3hich states that the contributor%ne)li)ence of the part% in


29/146

29

the last clear chance to avoid the ishap is considered in la3 solel% responsible for theconse=uences thereof.7"

In #usta&ante vs. Court of +ppeals,7%e held4

2he respondent court adopted the doctrine of ?last clear chance.? 2hedoctrine, stated broadl%, is that the ne)li)ence of the plaintiff does notpreclude a recover% for the ne)li)ence of the defendant 3here it appearsthat the defendant, b% e!ercisin) reasonable care and prudence, i)hthave avoided in


30/146

30

2he dili)ence of a )ood father referred to eans the dili)ence in the selection andsupervision of eplo%ees. ";2he ans3ers of the private respondents in Civil Cases Nos.// and /@ did not interpose this defense. Neither did the% attept to prove it.

2he respondent Court 3as then correct in its Decision of 0 Noveber +@; in reversin)the decision of the trial court 3hich disissed Civil Cases Nos. // and /@. Itsassailed Resolution of ; >pril +@ finds no sufficient le)al and factual oorin)s.

In the li)ht of recent decisions of this Court, "the indenit% for death ust, ho3ever, beincreased fro P+0,999.99 to P19,999.99.

AERE"ORE, the instant petition is R>N2ED. 2he assailed Resolution of therespondent Court of ; >pril +@ is SE2 >SIDE 3hile its Decision of 0 Noveber +@;in C.>.*.R. CV Nos. -99*+ is REINS2>2ED, sub.M. on(une 0, +-/, after the t%phoon had abated and 3hen the flood3aters3ere be)innin) to recede the deceased Isabel Hao (uan, fondl% calledNana &elen, ventured out of the house of her son*in*la3, >ntonio abes,on No. + uerrero Street, Haoa) Cit%, and proceeded north3ard to3ardsthe direction of the "ive Sisters Eporiu, of 3hich she 3as the o3nerand proprietress, to loo7 after the erchandise therein that i)ht havebeen daa)ed. adin) in 3aist*deep flood on uerrero, the deceased3as follo3ed b% >ida &ulon), a Sales)irl at the "ive Sisters rocer%, alsoo3ned b% the deceased, and b% Hinda >lon$o Estavillo, a tic7et seller atthe ( Cinea, 3hich 3as partl% o3ned b% the deceased. >ida and Hinda3al7ed side b% side at a distance of bet3een 1 and - eters behind thedeceased, Suddenl%, the deceased screaed ?>%? and =uic7l% san7 intothe 3ater. 2he t3o )irls attepted to help, but fear dissuaded the frodoin) so because on the spot 3here the deceased san7 the% sa3 anelectric 3ire dan)lin) fro a post and ovin) in sna7e*li7e fashion in the3ater. Bpon their shouts for help, Ernesto dela Cru$ cae out of thehouse of >ntonio abes. Ernesto tried to )o to the deceased, but at foureters a3a% fro her he turned bac7 shoutin) that the 3ater 3as)rounded. >ida and Hinda prodded Ernesto to see7 help fro >ntonioabes at the ( Cinea buildin) 3hich 3as four or five bloc7s a3a%.


31/146

31

hen >ntonio abes 3as infored b% Ernesto that his other*in la3 hadbeen electrocuted, he acted iediatel%. ith his 3ife (ane, to)ether3ith Ernesto and one (oe Ros, abes passed b% the Cit% Aall of Haoa) tore=uest the police to as7 the people of defendant Ilocos Norte ElectricCopan% or INEHCO to cut off the electric current. 2hen the part% 3adedto the house on uerrero Street. 2he flood3ater 3as recedin) and theli)hts inside the house 3ere out indicatin) that the electric current hadbeen cut off in uerrero. abes instructed his bo%s to fish for the bod% ofthe deceased. 2he bod% 3as recovered about t3o eters fro an electricpost.

In another place, at about 499 >.M. on that fateful date, (une 0, +-/,En)ineer >ntonio (uan, Po3er Plant En)ineer of the National Po3erCorporation at the Haoa) Diesel*Electric Plant, noticed certain

fluctuations in their electric eter 3hich indicated such abnoralities as)rounded or short*circuited lines. &et3een -499 and -4;9 >.M., he set outof the Haoa) NPC Copound on an inspection. On the 3a%, he sa3)rounded and disconnected lines. Electric lines 3ere han)in) fro theposts to the )round. Since he could not see an% INEHCO linean, hedecided to )o to the INEHCO Office at the Hife 2heatre on Ri$al Street b%3a% of uerrero. >s he turned ri)ht at the intersection of uerrero andRi$al, he sa3 an electric 3ire about ;9 eters lon) strun) across thestreet ?and the other end 3as seein) to pla% 3ith the current of the3ater.? 5p. -, 2SN, Oct. 0, +/06 "indin) the Office of the INEHCO stillclosed, and seein) no linean therein, he returned to the NPCCopound.

>t about @4+9 >.M., En)r. (uan 3ent out of the copound a)ain onanother inspection trip. Aavin) learned of the death of Isabel Hao (uan,he passed b% the house of the deceased at the corner of uerrero andM.A. del Pilar streets to 3hich the bod% had been ta7en. Bsin) theresuscitator 3hich 3as a standard e=uipent in his on) thes%pathi$ers 3as Dr. (ovencio Castro, Municipal Aealth Officer of Sarrat,Ilocos Norte. Bpon the re=uest of the relatives of the deceased, Dr.Castro e!ained the bod% at about @499 >.M. on (une 0, +-/. 2he s7in3as )ra%ish or, in edical parlance, c%anotic, 3hich indicated death b%electrocution. On the left pal, the doctor found an ?electricall% char)ed3ound? 5E!h. C*+4 p. +9+, 2SN, Nov. 0@, +/06 or a first de)ree burn.>bout the base of the thub on the left hand 3as a burned 3ound. 5E!h.C*0, pp. +90*+9;, /id.6 2he certificate of death prepared b% Dr. Castrostated the cause of: death as ,:circulator% shoc7 electrocution? 5E!h. I8 p.+9;, /id.6.

In defense and e!culpation, defendant presented the testionies of its

officers and eplo%ees, nael%, Conrado >sis, electric en)ineer8 Horeto>bibi


32/146

32

Streets to s3itch off the street li)hts in >rea No. . Ae did not see an% cutor bro7en 3ires in or near the vicinit%. hat he sa3 3ere an% peoplefishin) out the bod% of Isabel Hao (uan.

> 3itness in the person of Dr. >ntonio &riones 3as presented b% thedefense to sho3 that the deceased could not have died of electrocutionSubstantiall%, the testion% of the doctor is as follo3s4 ithout anautops% on the cadaver of the victi, no doctor, not even a edicole)ale!pert, can speculate as to the real cause of death. C%anosis could nothave been found in the bod% of the deceased three hours after her death,because c%anosis 3hich eans lac7 of o!%)en circulatin) in the bloodand renderin) the color of the s7in purplish, appears onl% in a live person.2he presence of the elon)ated burn in the left pal of the deceased5E!hibits C*+ and C*06 is not sufficient to establish her death b%

electrocution8 since burns caused b% electricit% are ore or less round inshape and 3ith points of entr% and e!it. Aad the deceased held the lethal3ire for a lon) tie, the laceration in her pal 3ould have been bi))erand the in Decision, pp. +@*0+, Rollo6

>n action for daa)es in the a))re)ate aount of P019,999 3as instituted b% the heirsof the deceased 3ith the aforesaid C"I on (une 0, +-@. In its >ns3er 5Vide, Record on>ppeal, p. 11, Rollo6, petitioner advanced the theor%, as a special defense, that thedeceased could have died sipl% either b% dro3nin) or b% electrocution due tone)li)ence attributable onl% to herself and not to petitioner. In this re)ard, it 3as pointedout that the deceased, 3ithout petitioner:s 7no3led)e, caused the installation of a bur)lardeterrent b% connectin) a 3ire fro the ain house to the iron )ate and fence of steelattin), thus, char)in) the latter 3ith electric current 3henever the s3itch is on.Petitioner then confter due trial, the C"I found the facts in favor ofpetitioner and disissed the coplaint but a3arded to the latter P01,999 in oraldaa)es and attorne%:s fees of P1,999. >n appeal 3as filed 3ith the C> 3hich issuedthe controverted decision.

In this petition for revie3 the petitioner assi)ns the follo3in) errors coitted b% therespondent C>4

+. 2he respondent Court of >ppeals coitted )raveabuse of discretion and error in considerin) the purel%hearsa% alle)ed declarations of Ernesto de la Cru$ aspart of the res estae.

0. 2he respondent Court of >ppeals coitted )raveabuse of discretion and error in holdin) that the stron)t%phoon ?enin)? 3hich struc7 Haoa) Cit% and IlocosNorte on (une 0, +-/ and the flood and delu)e itbrou)ht in its 3a7e 3ere not fortuitous events and did note!onerate petitioner*copan% fro liabilit% for the deathof Isabel Hao (uan.

;. 2he respondent Court of >ppeals )ravel% abused itsdiscretion and erred in not appl%in) the le)al principle of?assuption of ris7? in the present case to bar privaterespondents fro collectin) daa)es fro petitionercopan%.

. 2hat the respondent Court of >ppeals )ravel% erredand abused its discretion in copletel% reversin) thefindin)s of fact of the trial court.

1. 2he findin)s of fact of the respondent Court of >ppealsare reversible under the reco)ni$ed e!ceptions.

-. 2he trial court did not err in a3ardin) oral daa)esand attorne%:s fees to defendant corporation, no3petitioner copan%.

/. >ssuin) aruendothat petitioner copan% a% beheld liable fro the death of the late Isabel Hao (uan, thedaa)es )ranted b% respondent Court of >ppeals areiproper and e!horbitant. 5Petitioners Meorandu, p.+;;, Rollo6

&asicall%, three ain issues are apparent4 5+6 3hether or not the deceased died of

electrocution8 506 3hether or not petitioner a% be held liable for the deceased:s death8and 5;6 3hether or not the respondent C>:s substitution of the trial court:s factual findin)sfor its o3n 3as proper.

In considerin) the first issue, it is Our vie3 that the sae be resolved in the affirative.&% a preponderance of evidence, private respondents 3ere able to sho3 that thedeceased died of electrocution, a conclusion 3hich can be priaril% derived fro thephoto)raphed burnt 3ounds 5E!hibits ?C?, ?C*+?, ?C*0?6 on the left pal of the forer.Such 3ounds undoubtedl% point to the fact that the deceased had clutched a live 3ire of


33/146

33

the petitioner. 2his 3as corroborated b% the testion% of Dr. (ovencio Castro 3hoactuall% e!ained the bod% of the deceased a fe3 hours after the death and describedthe said burnt 3ounds as a ?first de)ree burn? 5p. +, 2SN, Deceber ++, +/06 andthat the% 3ere ?electricall% char)ed? 5p. +90, 2SN, Noveber 0@, +/06. "urtherore,3itnesses Hinda >lon$o Estavillo and >ida &ulon) added that after the deceasedscreaed ?>%? and san7 into the 3ater, the% tried to render soe help but 3ereovercoe 3ith fear b% the si)ht of an electric 3ire dan)lin) fro an electric post, ovin)in the 3ater in a sna7e*li7e fashion 5supra6. 2he fore)oin) therefore in concludin) that ?5t6he nature of the 3ounds as described b% the3itnesses 3ho sa3 the can lead to no other conclusion than that the% 3ere ?burns,?and there 3as nothin) else in the street 3here the victi 3as 3adin) thru 3hich couldcause a burn e!cept the dan)lin) live 3ire of defendant copan%? 5C> Decision, p. 00,Rollo6.

&ut in order to escape liabilit%, petitioner ventures into the theor% that the deceased 3aselectrocuted, if such 3as reall% the case 3hen she tried to open her steel )ate, 3hich3as electricall% char)ed b% an electric 3ire she herself caused to install to serve as abur)lar deterrent. Petitioner su))ests that the s3itch to said bur)lar alar 3as left on.&ut this is ere speculation, not bac7ed up 3ith evidence. >s re=uired b% the Rules,?each part% ust prove his o3n affirative alle)ations.? 5Rule +;+, Sec. +6.Nevertheless, the C> si)nificantl% noted that ?durin) the trial, this theor% 3as abandoned?b% the petitioner 5C> Decision, p. 0;, Rollo6.

"urtherore the C> properl% applied the principle of res estae. 2he C> said4

Hinda >lon$o Estavillo, a tic7et seller, and >ida &ulon), a sales)irl, 3ere3ith the deceased durin) that fateful ornin) of (une 0, +-/. 2hisCourt has not been offered an% sufficient reason to discredit thetestionies of these t3o %oun) ladies. 2he% 3ere one in the affirationthat the deceased, 3hile 3adin) in the 3aist*deep flood on uerreroStreet five or si! eters ahead of the, suddenl% screaed ?>%? and=uic7l% san7 into the 3ater. hen the% approached the deceased to help,the% 3ere stopped b% the si)ht of an electric 3ire dan)lin) fro a post

and ovin) in sna7e*li7e fashion in the 3ater. Ernesto dela Cru$ alsotried to approach the deceased, but he turned bac7 shoutin) that the2ater 2as rounded. 2hese bits of evidence carr% uch 3ei)ht. "or thesub Decision, p.0+, Rollo6

"or the adission of the res estaein evidence, the follo3in) re=uisites ust be present45+6 that the principal act, the res estae, be a startlin) occurrence8 506 that the stateents

3ere ade before the declarant had tie to contrive or devise8 5;6 that the stateentsade ust concern the occurrence in =uestion and its iediatel% attendin)circustances 5People vs. Ner, 0@ SCR> ++1+8 People vs. &albas, +00 SCR> 16. edo not find an% abuse of discretion on the C>: part in vie3 of the satisfaction of saidre=uisites in the case at bar.

2he stateents ade relative to the startlin) occurrence are aditted in evidenceprecisel% as an e!ception to the hearsa% rule on the )rounds of trust3orthiness andnecessit%. ?2rust3orthiness? because the stateents are ade instinctivel% 5esle% vs.State, 1; >la. +@06, and ?necessit%? because such natural and spontaneous utterancesare ore convincin) than the testion% of the sae person on the stand 5Mobile vs.>scraft @ >la. ;+6. 2herefore, the fact that the declarant, Ernesto de la Cru$, 3as notpresented to testif% does not a7e the testion% of Hinda >lon$o Estavillo and >ida&ulon) hearsa% since the said declaration is part of the res estae. Siilarl%, e

considered part of the res estaea conversation bet3een t3o accused iediatel% aftercoission of the crie as overheard b% a prosecution 3itness 5People vs. Re%es, @0Phil. 1-;6.

hile it a% be true that, as petitioner ar)ues 5vide petitioner:s Meorandu, p. +;1,Rollo6, Ernesto de la Cru$ 3as not an actual 3itness to the instant 3hen the deceasedsan7 into the 3aist*deep 3ater, he acted upon the call of help of >ida &ulon) and Hinda>lon$o Estavillo 3ith the 7no3led)e of, and iediatel% after, the sin7in) of thedeceased. In fact the startlin) event had not %et ceased 3hen Ernesto de la Cru$ enteredthe scene considerin) that the victi reained suber)ed. Bnder such a circustance,it is undeniable that a state of ind characteri$ed b% nervous e!citeent had beentri))ered in Ernesto de la Cru$:s bein) as an%bod% under the sae contin)enc% couldhave e!perienced. >s such, e cannot honestl% e!clude his shouts that the 3ater 3as)rounded fro the res estae%.?

Neither can e disiss the said declaration as a ere opinion of Ernesto de la Cru$.hile e concede to the subission that the stateent ust be one of facts rather thanopinion, e cannot a)ree to the proposition that the one ade b% hi 3as a ere

opinion. On the contrar%, his shout 3as a translation of an actualit% as perceived b% hithrou)h his sense of touch.

"inall%, e do not a)ree that the ta7in) of Ernesto de la Cru$: testion% 3as suppressedb% the private respondents, thus, is presued to be adverse to the pursuant to Section15e6, Rule +;+. "or the application of said Rule as a)ainst a part% to a case, it isnecessar% that the evidence alle)ed to be suppressed is available onl% to said part%5People vs. 2ulale, H*/0;;, +@ Ma% +11, / Phil. 1;6. 2he presuption does notoperate if the evidence in =uestion is e=uall% available to both parties 5StaplesAo3e


34/146

34

Printin) Co. vs. &ld). and Hoan >ssn., ;- Phil. 0+6. It is clear fro the records thatpetitioner could have called Ernesto de la Cru$ to the 3itness stand. 2his, precisel%, 3asHinda >lon$o Estavillo:s su))estion to petitioner:s counsel 3hen she testified on crosse!aination4

#. >nd that Ernin) de la Cru$, ho3 far did he reach fro the )ateof the houseJ

>. ell, %ou can as7 that atter fro hi sir because he is here.52SN, p. ;9, 0- Sept. +/06

2he fore)oin) sho3s that petitioner had the opportunit% to verif% the declarations ofErnesto de la Cru$ 3hich, if trul% adverse to private respondent, 3ould have helped itscase. Ao3ever, due to reasons 7no3n onl% to petitioner, the opportunit% 3as not ta7en.

Coin) no3 to the second issue, e tip the scales in the private respondents: favor. 2herespondent C> acted correctl% in disposin) the ar)uent that petitioner be e!oneratedfro liabilit% since t%phoons and floods are fortuitous events. hile it is true thatt%phoons and floods are considered >cts of od for 3hich no person a% be heldresponsible, it 3as not said eventualit% 3hich directl% caused the victi:s death. It 3asthrou)h the intervention of petitioner:s ne)li)ence that death too7 place. e subscribe tothe conclusions of the respondent C> 3hen it found4

On the issue 3hether or not the defendant incurred liabilit% for theelectrocution and conse=uent death of the late Isabel Hao (uan,defendant called to the 3itness*stand its electrical en)ineer, chieflinean, and linean to sho3 e!ercise of e!traordinar% dili)ence and tone)ate the char)e of ne)li)ence. 2he 3itnesses testified in a )eneral 3a%about their duties and the easures 3hich defendant usuallyadopts toprevent ha$ards to life and lib. "ro these testionies, the lo3er courtfound ?that the electric lines and other e=uipent of defendantcorporation 3ere properl% aintained b% a 3ell*trained tea of linean,technicians and en)ineers 3or7in) around the cloc7 to insure that thesee=uipents 3ere in e!cellent condition at all ties.? 5P. 9, Record on>ppeal6 2he findin) of the lo3er court, ho3ever, 3as based on 3hat thedefendant:s eplo%ees 3ere supposed to do, not on 3hat the% actuall%did or failed to do on t!e date in =uestion, and not on the occasion of thee&eren%ysituation brou)ht about b% the t%phoon.

2he lo3er court ade a ista7e in assuin) that defendant:s eplo%ees3or7ed around the cloc7 durin) the occurrence of the t%phoon on theni)ht of (une 0@ and until the earl% ornin) of (une 0, +-/, En)r.

>ntonio (uan of the National Po3er Corporation affired that 3hen hefirst set out on an inspection trip bet3een -499 and -4;9 >.M. on (une 0,+-/, he sa3 )rounded and disconnected electric lines of the defendantbut !e sa2 no/"3(C line&an. 2he INEHCO Office at the Hife theatreon Ri$al Street 3as still %losed. 5pp. -;*-, 2SN, Oct. 0, +/06 Even the3itnesses of defendant contradict the findin) of the lo3er court. Conrado>sis, defendant:s electrical en)ineer, testified that he conducted a)eneral inspection of the franchise area of the INEHCO onl% on June E,1967, the da% follo3in) the t%phoon. 2he reason he )ave for the dela%3as that all their vehicles 3ere suber)ed. 5p. ;;/, 2SN, (ul% 09, +/;6>ccordin) to >sis, he arrived at his office at @499 >.M. on June E andafter briefin) his en on 3hat to do the% started out. 5p. ;;@, lid6 One ort3o da%s after the t%phoon, the INEHCO people heard ?ruors thatsoeone 3as electrocuted? so he sent one of his en to the place but

his an reported bac7 that there 3as no daa)ed 3ire. 5p. ;@1, /d.6Horeto >bi.M. on (une 0, +-/ En)r. (uan cae to theINEHCO plant and as7ed the INEHCO people to inspect their lines. Ae3ent 3ith En)r. (uan and their inspection lasted fro @499 >.M. to +0499noon. 5pp. -9, -1, 2SN, (an. 0@, +/16 "abico >bit that tie, he 3as at the ain buildin) of the Divine ordColle)e of Haoa) 3here he had ta7en his fail% for refu)e. 5pp. 1+9*1++,/id.6

In ties of calaities such as the one 3hich occurred in Haoa) Cit% onthe ni)ht of (une 0@ until the earl% hours of (une 0, +-/, e!traordinar%dili)ence re=uires a supplier of ele%tri%ity to be in %onstant viil to preventor avoid an% probable incident that i)ht iperil life or lib. 2heevidence does not sho3 that defendant did that. On the contrar%,evidence discloses that there 3ere no en 5lineen or other3ise6policin) the area, nor even annin) its office. 5C> Decision, pp. 0*01,Rollo6

Indeed, under the circustances of the case, petitioner 3as ne)li)ent in seein) to it thatno har is done to the )eneral public?... considerin) that electricit% is an a)enc%, subtleand deadl%, the easure of care re=uired of electric copanies ust be coensurate3ith or proportionate to the dan)er. 2he dut% of e!ercisin) this hi)h de)ree of dili)enceand care e!tends to ever% place 3here persons have a ri)ht to be? 5>studillo vs. ManilaElectric, 11 Phil. 0/6. 2he ne)li)ence of petitioner havin) been sho3n, it a% not no3absolve itself fro liabilit% b% ar)uin) that the victi:s death 3as solel% due to a fortuitousevent. ?hen an act of od cobines or concurs 3ith the ne)li)ence of the defendant to


35/146

35

produce an inlon$o Estavillo 5see 2SN, p. 1, 0- Sept. +/06 and >ida &ulon) 5see2SN, p. ;, 0- Sept. +/06, the deceased, accopanied b% the forer t3o, 3ere on their3a% to the latter:s )rocer% store ?to see to it that the )oods 3ere not flooded.? >s such,shall e punish her for e!ercisin) her ri)ht to protect her propert% fro the floods b%iputin) upon her the unfavorable presuption that she assued the ris7 of personalin for havin) abused its discretion in copletel% reversin) thetrial court:s findin)s of fact, pointin) to the testionies of three of its eplo%ees itselectrical en)ineer, collector*inspector, linean, and president*ana)er to the effect thatit had e!ercised the de)ree of dili)ence re=uired of it in 7eepin) its electric lines free frodefects that a% iperil life and lib. Hi7e3ise, the said eplo%ees of petitionercate)oricall% diso3ned the fatal 3ires as the% appear in t3o photo)raphs ta7en on theafternoon of (une 0, +-/ 5E!hs. ?D? and ?E?6, su))estin) that said 3ires 3ere properl% held, ?5t6he findin) of the lo3er court ... 3as based on 3hat the defendant:seplo%ees 3ere supposed to do, not on 3hat the% actuall% did or failed to do on t!e date

in =uestion, and not on the

torts and damages full text page 3

Documents