Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 263 views

    Vergara Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    JB
    This case involved a vehicular accident where a cargo truck driven by Martin Belmonte, an employee of petitioner Vicente Vergara, rammed into the store-residence of private respondent Amadeo Azarcon, causing damages. The trial court found Vergara jointly liable and ordered him to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court ruled that Vergara was guilty of quasi-delict based on evidence that his driver's negligence caused the accident. According to witness reports, the truck crossed into oncoming traffic before crashing. The driver claimed the brakes failed, but the court found this was due to a curable defect and therefore not a fortuitous event absolving liability

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Vergara Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    JB
    263 views2 pages
    This case involved a vehicular accident where a cargo truck driven by Martin Belmonte, an employee of petitioner Vicente Vergara, rammed into the store-residence of private respondent Amadeo Azarcon, causing damages. The trial court found Vergara jointly liable and ordered him to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court ruled that Vergara was guilty of quasi-delict based on evidence that his driver's negligence caused the accident. According to witness reports, the truck crossed into oncoming traffic before crashing. The driver claimed the brakes failed, but the court found this was due to a curable defect and therefore not a fortuitous event absolving liability

    Original Description:

    vergara vs ca

    Original Title

    Vergara vs CA.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a vehicular accident where a cargo truck driven by Martin Belmonte, an employee of petitioner Vicente Vergara, rammed into the store-residence of private respondent Amadeo Azarcon, causing damages. The trial court found Vergara jointly liable and ordered him to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court ruled that Vergara was guilty of quasi-delict based on evidence that his driver's negligence caused the accident. According to witness reports, the truck crossed into oncoming traffic before crashing. The driver claimed the brakes failed, but the court found this was due to a curable defect and therefore not a fortuitous event absolving liability

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    263 views2 pages

    Vergara Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    JB
    This case involved a vehicular accident where a cargo truck driven by Martin Belmonte, an employee of petitioner Vicente Vergara, rammed into the store-residence of private respondent Amadeo Azarcon, causing damages. The trial court found Vergara jointly liable and ordered him to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court ruled that Vergara was guilty of quasi-delict based on evidence that his driver's negligence caused the accident. According to witness reports, the truck crossed into oncoming traffic before crashing. The driver claimed the brakes failed, but the court found this was due to a curable defect and therefore not a fortuitous event absolving liability

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Vergara v.

    Court of Appeals
    G.R. No. 77679, September 30, 1987
    Padilla, J:
    FACTS:
    A vehicular accident occurred on August 5, 1979, when Martin Belmonte, while
    driving a cargo truck belonging to petitioner Vicente Vergara, rammed the storeresidence of private respondent Amadeo Azarcon, causing damage assessed at
    P53, 024.22. The trial court rendered decision in favor of private respondent,
    ordering the petitioner to pay, jointly and severally with Travellers Insurance and
    Surety Corporation, the following: (a) P53, 024.22 as actual damages; (b)
    P10,000.00 as moral damages; (c) P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (d) the
    sum of P5,000.00 for attorney's fees and the costs. The insurance company was
    sentenced to pay to the petitioner the following: (a) P50, 000.00 for third party
    liability under its comprehensive accident insurance policy; and (b) P3,000.00 for
    and as attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in toto; hence,
    this instant petition for certiorari.
    LAWS RELATED TO THE CASE:
    Article 2176 of the Civil Code
    "Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
    negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if
    there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasidelict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)."
    ISSUE: Whether the petitioner is guilty of quasi-delict
    DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT: The trial court rendered judgment in favor of
    private respondent.
    DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS: The CA affirmed in toto the decision of
    the trial court, which ordered Petitioner to pay, jointly and severally with Travellers
    Insurance and Surety Corporation, to the private, respondent the following: (a)
    P53, 024.22 as actual damages; (b) P10, 000.00 as moral damages; (c) P10,
    000.00 as exemplary damages; and (d) the sum of P5, 000.00 for attorney's fees
    and the costs. On the third party complaint, the insurance company was
    sentenced to pay to the petitioner the following: (a) P50, 000.00 for third party
    liability under its comprehensive accident insurance policy; and (b) P3, 000.00 for
    and as attorney's fees.
    SC RULING: Yes. It was established by competent evidence that the requisites of
    a quasi-delict are present in the case at bar. These requisites are: (1) damages to
    the plaintiff; (2) negligence, by act or omission, of which defendant, or some
    person for whose acts he must respond, was guilty; and (3) the connection of
    cause and effect between such negligence and the damages. The fact of
    negligence may be deduced from the surrounding circumstances thereof.
    According to the police report, "the cargo truck was traveling on the right side of
    the road going to Manila and then it crossed to the center line and went to the left

    side of the highway; it then bumped a tricycle; and then another bicycle; and then
    said cargo truck rammed the store warehouse of the plaintiff." According to the
    driver of the cargo truck, he applied the brakes but the latter did not work due to
    mechanical defect. Contrary to the claim of the petitioner, a mishap caused by
    defective brakes cannot be consideration as fortuitous in character. Certainly, the
    defects were curable and the accident preventable.

    You might also like