[175] TIU V.

ARRESGADO ○ Hence, he filed a complaint against the petitioner for breach of

G.R. No. 138060 | September 1, 2004 contract of carriage, damages and for attorney’s fees against the
FULL CASE NAME: WILLIAM TIU, doing business under the name and style of D petitioner, the owner of the bus, William Tiu and his driver,
Laspinas.
Rough Riders, and VIRGILIO TE LAS PIAS petitioners, vs. PEDRO A.
○ He alleged that the proximate cause of the accident and their
ARRIESGADO, BENJAMIN CONDOR, SERGIO PEDRANO and PHILIPPINE subsequent injuries was the reckless and imprudent driving of
PHOENIX SURETY AND INSURANCE, INC., respondents. Laspinas (the failure to observe utmost diligence required of a very
TOPIC: Torts; Concept of Fault or Negligence; Causal relation between act/omission cautious person under all circumstances).
and injury; Proximate cause ● The petitioner also filed a third-party complaint alleging that his driver was
driving at a moderate and normal speed and the said truck was parked in a
SUMMARY: A cargo truck was parked at the side of the highway since its rear tire slanted manner and did not have any early warning devices displayed while
it was left by the driver which resulted to the collision and would therefore
exploded as it passed over a bridge. At around 4:45AM, a passenger bus carrying the
make, Benjamin Condor, the owner of the truck liable as well.
respondent and his wife, passed by the same route. The bus driver already saw the ○ He also included that he was covered by Philippine Phoenix Surety
truck from 25m away. When the bus driver tried to swerve to avoid hitting the truck, and Insurance (PPSI) at the time of the incident which would
the bus rammed into the truck’s left rear. This caused the injury of the respondent and therefore make the same liable for part of the damages that may
the subsequent death of his wife. The issue in this case is whose negligence caused arise as well.
the injuries of the respondents. The Court held that the proximate cause of the ● PPSI, however argued that it already attended to and settled claims of those
accident was the bus driver’s negligence in driving but the owner and driver of the who were injured in the collision and that it could not accede to the claim of
Arriesgado because it was beyond that of the terms of the insurance.
truck were also guilty of contributory negligence.
● Arriesgado, on the other hand, claims that the recklessness and imprudence
was proximate cause of which was defendant-drivers failure to observe
DOCTRINE: In actions for breach of contract, only the existence of such contract, and
utmost diligence required of a very cautious person under all circumstances.
the fact that the obligor, in this case the common carrier, failed to transport his
● Trial Court - contention of the petitioner was invalid because the said truck
passenger safely to his destination are the matters that need to be proved. Any injury had left its tail lights open and that the said road was well lit at the time of the
suffered by the passengers in the course thereof is immediately attributable to the accident.
negligence of the carrier. Upon the happening of the accident, the presumption of ○ Hence, it was the fault of the bus, for traveling at a fast pace, that
negligence at once arises, and it becomes the duty of a common carrier to prove that the collision happened.
he observed extraordinary diligence in the care of his passengers. ○ Awarded moral damages, exemplary damages, actual damages,
attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
○ Tiu appealed the decision to the CA.
FACTS: ● CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. Reduced moral and exemplary
● March 15, 1987, 10PM – A cargo truck marked “Condor Hollow Blocks and damages.
General Merchandise” was loaded with firewood on its way to Cebu City ○ Action of Arriesgado was based not on quasi-delict but on breach of
when its rear tire exploded as it passed over a bridge. contract.
○ The driver, Sergio Pedrano, then parked the truck on the side of the ○ Tiu failed to prove the observance of extraordinary diligence.
National Highway, left the rear lights on, and instructed his helper, ● Petitioners assail the finding of both the trial court and the CA that petitioner
Jose Mitante, to watch over the truck and place a spare tire on the Laspinas was driving at a very fast speed before the bus owned by petitioner
road a few meters (six fathoms) away from the truck to serve as a Tiu collided with respondent Condor’s stalled truck.
warning device as he went and had the faulty tire vulcanized at a o This is clearly one of fact, not reviewable by the Court in a petition
shop 700m away. This was about 12AM. for review under Rule 45.
○ After Pedrano left, at around 4:45AM, D’ Rough Riders passenger o But considering that novel questions of law are involved, the Court
bus carrying the respondent and his wife, passed by the same still decided to resolve the case and rule on the merits.
route. Laspinas, the driver, saw the stalled truck 25m away. He
applied the brakes and tried to swerve to the left to avoid hitting the ISSUES:
truck. 1. W/N the proximate cause of the accident was Laspinas’ negligence in driving
○ However, the bus rammed into the truck’s left rear. - YES
● The respondent was injured (fracture in his right colles) in the collision and 2. W/N the owner and driver of the cargo truck were guilty of contributory
his wife, Felissa Arriesgado eventually died after sustaining injuries from the negligence – YES
same.
RATIO:
1. YES of a common carrier to prove that he observed extraordinary
● Laspinas admitted he saw the truck 25m before impact. He should have had diligence in the care of his passengers.
more than enough time to swerve to avoid it if he was truly going at the 40- o In this case, respondent Arriesgado and his wife contracted with
50kph he claimed.
Tiu, as owner and operator of D Rough Riders bus for
● The CA was correct in finding that it is easier to believe that he was driving
at a fast speed as it was 4:45AM and there were no oncoming vehicles from transportation from Maya, Cebu to Cebu City for P18. It is
the opposite direction so he could have swerved to the left with proper undisputed that they were not safely transported to the destination
clearance. agreed upon.
● “A man must use common sense, and exercise due reflection in all his acts; o While evidence may be submitted to overcome such presumption
it is his duty to be cautious, careful and prudent, if not from instinct, then of negligence, it must be shown that the carrier observed the
through fear of recurring punishment. He is responsible for such results as required extraordinary diligence, or the utmost diligence of very
anyone might foresee and for acts which no one would have performed cautious persons as far as human care and foresight can provide,
except through culpable abandon. Otherwise, his own person, rights and or that the accident was caused by fortuitous event. Tiu failed to
property, and those of his fellow beings, would ever be exposed to all conclusively rebut such presumption. The negligence of the driver
manner of danger and injury.” is thus binding against the owner of the passenger bus engaged as
● The Court also agreed with the findings of the CA that Laspinas failed to a common carrier
observe extraordinary diligence as a driver of a common carrier. It was hard ● The Doctrine of Last Clear Chance is inapplicable.
to believe that the Rough Rider Bus, with its elevated position from where o Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the principle of last clear chance
the cargo truck was parked, did not see the truck with its headlights fully on is inapplicable in the instant case, as it only applies in a suit between
and was unable to avoid hitting it. There was much space between it and the the owners and drivers of two colliding vehicles.
canal, enough for the bus to pass through. o It does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the
● By Laspinas’ own admission, he was driving at the speed of 40-50kph before carrier to enforce its contractual obligations, for it would be inequitable
the collision but the speed limit on the bridge was only 30kph. to exempt the negligent driver and its owner on the ground that the
● Under Art. 2185 of the CC, a person driving a vehicle is presumed negligent other driver was likewise guilty of negligence.
if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. o Does not play a large role in this jurisdiction as we do not apply the
○ Section 35 of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, Republic
concept of contributory negligence as an absolute bar to recovery.
Act No. 4136
Sec. 35. Restriction as to speed.—(a) Any person driving a motor
2. YES.
vehicle on a highway shall drive the same at a careful and prudent
speed, not greater nor less than is reasonable and proper, having ● Cited the case of Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. Inc
due regard for the traffic, the width of the highway, and or any other o Court ruled in this case that the improper parking of a dump truck
condition then and there existing; and no person shall drive any without any warning lights or reflector devices created an
motor vehicle upon a highway at such speed as to endanger the unreasonable risk for anyone driving within the vicinity, and for
life, limb and property of any person, nor at a speed greater than having created such risk,, the truck driver must be held responsible.
will permit him to bring the vehicle to a stop within the assured o What the petitioners describe as an “intervening cause” was no
clear distance ahead.
● Petitioner Tiu also failed to overcome the presumption of negligence against more than a foreseeable consequence of the risk created by the
him as one engaged in the business of common carriage. (Arts 1733, 1755 negligent manner in which the truck driver had parked the dump
and 1756) Thus, the negligence of his driver is binding upon him. truck.
o In actions for breach of contract, only the existence of such o The negligence was not that of an independent and overpowering
contract, and the fact that the obligor, in this case the common nature as to cut, as it were, the chain of causation in fact between
carrier, failed to transport his passenger safely to his destination the improper parking of the dump truck ad the accident, nor to
are the matters that need to be proved. Any injury suffered by the sever the juris vinculum of liability
passengers in the course thereof is immediately attributable to the o Negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate
negligence of the carrier. Upon the happening of the accident, the cause of the injury remained the truck driver’s lack of due care
presumption of negligence at once arises, and it becomes the duty
 ● In this case, TC and CA both failed to consider that respondent Pedrano was
also negligent in leaving the truck parked askew without proper warning (1) Respondent Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance, Inc. and petitioner William
lights or reflector devices. Tiu are ORDERED to pay, jointly and severally, respondent Pedro A. Arriesgado the
o Such failure created presumption of negligence on the part of total amount of P13,113.80;
employer Condor in supervising his employees properly and
adequately. (2) The petitioners and the respondents Benjamin Condor and Sergio Pedrano are
● Petitioners correctly invoked Pedrano’s failure to observe Art IV, Sec 34(g) ORDERED to pay, jointly and severally, respondent Pedro A. Arriesgado P50,000.00
of RA 4136 which provides: as indemnity; P26,441.50 as actual damages; P50,000.00 as moral damages;
o (g) Lights when parked or disabled.—Appropriate parking lights or P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; and P20,000.00 as attorneys fees.
flares visible one hundred meters away shall be displayed at a
corner of the vehicle whenever such vehicle is parked on highways SO ORDERED.
or in places that are not well-lighted or is placed in such manner as
to endanger passing traffic.
● Respondents Pedrano and Condor cannot be absolved from liability
because as found by the trial and appellate courts, the proximate cause of
the collision was the fast speed at which petitioner Laspinas drove the bus.
o To accept this proposition would be to come too close to wiping out
the fundamental principle of law that a man must respond for the
foreseeable consequences of his own negligent act or omission.
o Indeed, our law on quasi-delicts seeks to reduce the risks and
burdens of living in society and to allocate them among its
members. To accept this proposition would be to weaken the very
bonds of society.

On Damages
● TC correctly awarded moral damages and exemplary damages.
● The respondent Pedro A. Arriesgado, as the surviving spouse and heir of
Felisa Arriesgado, is entitled to indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00.67
The petitioners, as well as the respondents Benjamin Condor and Sergio
Pedrano are jointly and severally liable for said amount, conformably with
the following pronouncement of the Court in Fabre, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals.

DISPOSITIVE:
Hence, we cannot subscribe to respondents Condor and Pedranos claim that
they should be absolved from liability because, as found by the trial and appellate
courts, the proximate cause of the collision was the fast speed at which
petitioner Laspinas drove the bus. To accept this proposition would be to come too
close to wiping out the fundamental principle of law that a man must respond for the
foreseeable consequences of his own negligent act or omission. Indeed, our law on
quasi-delicts seeks to reduce the risks and burdens of living in society and to allocate
them among its members. To accept this proposition would be to weaken the very
bonds of society

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The

Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS: