ChanRobles™Virtual Law Library ™ | chanrobles.

com™

Like 0 Tweet Custom Search

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

Home > ChanRobles Virtual Law Library > Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > 2000 Decisions >

Jeeps for Sale Near Me Van Vehicle How Pay Ticket Online
Jeeps for Sale Near Me Civil Cases Jeep Truck
Supreme Court Cases Pre Owned Cars Truck Vehicles

www.chanrobles.com

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 128607. January 31, 2000

ALFREDO MALLARI SR. and ALFREDO MALLARI JR., Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS and
BULLETIN PUBLISHING CORPORATION, Respondents.

DECISION
 BELLOSILLO, J.:

ALFREDO MALLARI SR. and ALFREDO MALLARI JR. in this petition for review on certiorari seek to set
aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals 1 which reversed the court a quo and adjudged petitioners to
be liable for damages due to negligence as a common carrier resulting in the death of a passenger.

On 14 October 1987, at about 5:00 o'clock in the morning, the passenger jeepney driven by petitioner
Alfredo Mallari Jr. and owned by his co-petitioner Alfredo Mallari Sr. collided with the delivery van of
respondent Bulletin Publishing Corp. (BULLETIN, for brevity) along the National Highway in Barangay
San Pablo, Dinalupihan, Bataan. Petitioner Mallari Jr. testified that he went to the left lane of the
highway and overtook a Fiera which had stopped on the right lane. Before he passed by the Fiera, he
saw the van of respondent BULLETIN coming from the opposite direction. It was driven by one Felix
Angeles. The sketch of the accident showed that the collision occurred after Mallari Jr. overtook the
Fiera while negotiating a curve in the highway. The points of collision were the left rear portion of the
passenger jeepney and the left front side of the delivery van of BULLETIN. The two (2) right wheels of
the delivery van were on the right shoulder of the road and pieces of debris from the accident were
found scattered along the shoulder of the road up to a certain portion of the lane travelled by the
passenger jeepney. The impact caused the jeepney to turn around and fall on its left side resulting in
injuries to its passengers one of whom was Israel Reyes who eventually died due to the gravity of his
injuries.

On 16 December 1987 Claudia G. Reyes, the widow of Israel M. Reyes, filed a complaint for damages
with the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City against Alfredo Mallari Sr. and Alfredo Mallari Jr., and
also against BULLETIN, its driver Felix Angeles, and the N.V. Netherlands Insurance Company. The
complaint alleged that the collision which resulted in the death of Israel Reyes was caused by the fault
and negligence of both drivers of the passenger jeepney and the Bulletin Isuzu delivery van. The
complaint also prayed that the defendants be ordered jointly and severally to pay plaintiff P1,006,777.40
in compensatory damages, P40,000.00 for hospital and medical expenses, P18,270.00 for burial
expenses plus such amounts as may be fixed by the trial court for exemplary damages and attorneys
fees.

The trial court found that the proximate cause of the collision was the negligence of Felix Angeles, driver
of the Bulletin delivery van, considering the fact that the left front portion of the delivery truck driven by
Felix Angeles hit and bumped the left rear portion of the passenger jeepney driven by Alfredo Mallari Jr.
Hence, the trial court ordered BULLETIN and Felix Angeles to pay jointly and severally Claudia G.
Reyes, widow of the deceased victim, the sums of P42,106.93 for medical expenses; P8,600.00 for
funeral and burial expenses; P1,006,777.40 for loss of earning capacity; P5,000.00 for moral damages
and P10,000.00 for attorneys fees. The trial court also ordered N.V. Netherlands Insurance Company to
indemnify Claudia G. Reyes P12,000.00 as death indemnity and P2,500.00 for funeral expenses which
when paid should be deducted from the liabilities of respondent BULLETIN and its driver Felix Angeles
to the plaintiff. It also dismissed the complaint against the other defendants Alfredo Mallari Sr. and
Alfredo Mallari Jr.

On appeal the Court of Appeals modified the decision of the trial court and found no negligence on the
part of Angeles and consequently of his employer, respondent BULLETIN. Instead, the appellate court
ruled that the collision was caused by the sole negligence of petitioner Alfredo Mallari Jr. who admitted
that immediately before the collision and after he rounded a curve on the highway, he overtook a Fiera
which had stopped on his lane and that he had seen the van driven by Angeles before overtaking the
Fiera. The Court of Appeals ordered petitioners Mallari Jr. and Mallari Sr. to compensate Claudia G.
Reyes P1,006,777.50 for loss of earning capacity, P50,000.00 as indemnity for death and P10,000.00
for attorneys fees. It absolved from any liability respondent BULLETIN, Felix Angeles and N.V.
Netherlands Insurance Company. Hence this petition.

Petitioners contend that there is no evidence to show that petitioner Mallari Jr. overtook a vehicle at a
curve on the road at the time of the accident and that the testimony of Angeles on the overtaking made
by Mallari Jr. was not credible and unreliable. Petitioner also submits that the trial court was in a better
position than the Court of Appeals to assess the evidence and observe the witnesses as well as
determine their credibility; hence, its finding that the proximate cause of the collision was the negligence
of respondent Angeles, driver of the delivery van owned by respondent BULLETIN, should be given
more weight and consideration.

We cannot sustain petitioners. Contrary to their allegation that there was no evidence whatsoever that
petitioner Mallari Jr. overtook a vehicle at a curve on the road at the time of or before the accident, the
same petitioner himself testified that such fact indeed did occur -

Q:.......And what was that accident all about?

A:.......Well, what happened, sir, is that at about that time 5:00 oclock in that morning of October 14
while I was negotiating on the highway at San Pablo, Dinalupihan, Bataan, I was then following a blue
Ford Fierra and my distance behind was about twenty (20) feet and then I passed that blue Ford Fierra.
I overtook and when I was almost on the right lane of the highway towards Olongapo City there was an
oncoming delivery van of the Bulletin Publishing Corporation which bumped the left rear portion of the
jeepney which I was driving and as a result of which the jeepney x x x turned around and fell on its left
side and as a result of which some of my passengers including me were injured, sir x x x x

Q:.......Before you overtook the Ford Fierra jeepney did you look x x x whether there was any vehicle
coming towards you?

A:.......Yes, sir.

Q:.......Did you see the Bulletin van or the Press van coming towards you?

A:.......Yes, sir.

Q:.......At the moment the Ford Fierra xxx stop(ped) and in overtaking the Fierra, did you not have an
option to stop and not to overtake the Ford Fierra?

A:.......Well, at the time when the Ford Fierra stopped in front of me I slowed down with the intention of
applying the brake, however, when I saw the oncoming vehicle which is the Press van is very far x x x
which is 100 feet distance, x x x it is sufficient to overtake the Ford Fierra so I overt(ook) it x x x x

Q:.......You said that you took into consideration the speed of the oncoming Press van but you also
could not estimate the speed of the press van because it was dark at that time, which of these
statements are true?

A:.......What I wanted to say, I took into consideration the speed of the oncoming vehicle, the Press van,
although at the moment I could not estimate the speed of the oncoming vehicle x x x x2 cräläwvirtualibräry

The Court of Appeals correctly found, based on the sketch and spot report of the police authorities
which were not disputed by petitioners, that the collision occurred immediately after petitioner Mallari Jr.
overtook a vehicle in front of it while traversing a curve on the highway. 3 This act of overtaking was in
clear violation of Sec. 41, pars. (a) and (b), of RA 4136 as amended, otherwise known as The Land
Transportation and Traffic Code which provides:

Sec. 41. Restrictions on overtaking and passing. - (a) The driver of a vehicle shall not drive to the left
side of the center line of a highway in overtaking or passing another vehicle proceeding in the same
direction, unless such left side is clearly visible and is free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance
ahead to permit such overtaking or passing to be made in safety.

(b) The driver of a vehicle shall not overtake or pass another vehicle proceeding in the same direction
when approaching the crest of a grade, nor upon a curve in the highway, where the drivers view along
the highway is obstructed within a distance of five hundred feet ahead except on a highway having two
or more lanes for movement of traffic in one direction where the driver of a vehicle may overtake or pass
another vehicle:

Provided That on a highway, within a business or residential district, having two or more lanes for
movement of traffic in one direction, the driver of a vehicle may overtake or pass another vehicle on the
right.

The rule is settled that a driver abandoning his proper lane for the purpose of overtaking another vehicle
in an ordinary situation has the duty to see to it that the road is clear and not to proceed if he cannot do
so in safety. 4 When a motor vehicle is approaching or rounding a curve, there is special necessity for
keeping to the right side of the road and the driver does not have the right to drive on the left hand side
relying upon having time to turn to the right if a car approaching from the opposite direction comes into
view.5 cräläwvirtualibräry

In the instant case, by his own admission, petitioner Mallari Jr. already saw that the BULLETIN delivery
van was coming from the opposite direction and failing to consider the speed thereof since it was still
dark at 5:00 o'clock in the morning mindlessly occupied the left lane and overtook two (2) vehicles in
front of it at a curve in the highway. Clearly, the proximate cause of the collision resulting in the death of
Israel Reyes, a passenger of the jeepney, was the sole negligence of the driver of the passenger
jeepney, petitioner Alfredo Mallari Jr., who recklessly operated and drove his jeepney in a lane where
overtaking was not allowed by traffic rules. Under Art. 2185 of the Civil Code, unless there is proof to
the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the
mishap he was violating a traffic regulation. As found by the appellate court, petitioners failed to present
satisfactory evidence to overcome this legal presumption.

The negligence and recklessness of the driver of the passenger jeepney is binding against petitioner
Mallari Sr., who admittedly was the owner of the passenger jeepney engaged as a common carrier,
considering the fact that in an action based on contract of carriage, the court need not make an express
finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier in order to hold it responsible for the payment of
damages sought by the passenger. Under Art. 1755 of the Civil Code, a common carrier is bound to
carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide using the utmost diligence
of very cautious persons with due regard for all the circumstances. Moreover, under Art. 1756 of the
Civil Code, in case of death or injuries to passengers, a common carrier is presumed to have been at
fault or to have acted negligently, unless it proves that it observed extraordinary diligence. Further,
pursuant to Art. 1759 of the same Code, it is liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the
negligence or willful acts of the formers employees. This liability of the common carrier does not cease
upon proof that it exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of its employees.
Clearly, by the contract of carriage, the carrier jeepney owned by Mallari Sr. assumed the express
obligation to transport the passengers to their destination safely and to observe extraordinary diligence
with due regard for all the circumstances, and any injury or death that might be suffered by its
 passengers is right away attributable to the fault or negligence of the carrier.

The monetary award ordered by the appellate court to be paid by petitioners to the widow of the
deceased passenger Israel M. Reyes of P1,006,777.50 for loss of earning capacity, P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity for death, and P10,000.00 for attorneys fees, all of which were not disputed by petitioners, is a
factual matter binding and conclusive upon this Court.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 20 September
1995 reversing the decision of the trial court being in accord with law and evidence is AFFIRMED.
Consequently, petitioners are ordered jointly and severally to pay Claudia G. Reyes P1,006,777.50 for
loss of earning capacity, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for death, and P10,000.00 for attorneys fees.
Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., concur.

Endnotes:
1
Decision penned by Associate Justice Eubola Verzola, concurred in by Associate Justices Cesar D. Francisco and Oswaldo D. Agcaoili.

2
TSN, 9 February 1989, pp. 13-14, 28-32.
3
Records, pp. 101-102.

4
BLTB Co. v. IAC, G.R. Nos. 74387-90, 14 November 1988, 167 SCRA 379, citing People v. Enriquez, 40 O.G. No. 5.
5
Ibid.

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920
1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940

1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960

1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

FEATURED DECISIONScralaw

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

Search for www.chanrobles.com

Search

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920

1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960

1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Copyright © 1998 - 2020 ChanRoblesPublishing Company| Disclaimer | E-mailRestrictions ChanRobles™Virtual Law Library ™ | chanrobles.com™ RED