hung approximately 100 meters before the re-blocking OPINION

FIRST DIVISION March 24, 2014 G.R. No. 161151 site, one facing the Pili-bound motorists and another
facing the Naga-bound motorists; (b) road signs From the foregoing findings, it is the opinion of this Court
BJDC CONSTRUCTION, REPRESENTED BY ITS containing the words SLOW DOWN ROAD UNDER that the plaintiffs were unable to make out a case for
MANAGER/PROPRIETOR JANET S. DELA CRUZ, REPAIR 100 METERS AHEAD placed on the road damages, with a preponderance of evidence.
Petitioner, vs. NENA E. LANUZO, CLAUDETTE E. shoulders below the streamers; (c) road signs with the
LANUZO, JANET E. LANUZO, JOAN BERNABE E. words SLOW DOWN ROAD UNDER REPAIR 50 WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered,
LANUZO, and RYAN JOSEE. LANUZO, Respondent. METERS AHEAD placed 50 meters before the project DISMISSING the complaint.3
site; (d) barricades surrounded the affected portion of the
D E C I S I O N BERSAMIN, J.: highway, and a series of 50-watt light bulbs were Decision of the CA
installed and switched on daily from 6:00 p.m. until the
The party alleging the negligence of the other as the following morning; (e) big warning signs containing the The Lanuzo heirs appealed to the CA.
cause of injury has the burden to establish the allegation words SLOW DOWN ROAD UNDER REPAIR and
with competent evidence. If the action based on SLOW DOWN MEN WORKING were displayed at both On August 11, 2003, the CA promulgated its decision
negligence is civil in nature, the proof required is ends of the affected portion of the highway with declaring that the issue was whether the company had
preponderance of evidence. illumination from two 50-watt bulbs from 6:00 p.m. until installed adequate lighting in the project so that motorists
the following morning; and (f) the unaffected portion of could clearly see the barricade placed on the newly
This case involves a claim for damages arising from the the highway was temporarily widened in the adjacent cemented lane that was then still closed to vehicular
death of a motorcycle rider in a nighttime accident due to road shoulder to allow two-way vehicular traffic. traffic,4 thereby reversing the judgment of the RTC, and
the supposed negligence of a construction company then holding thusly:
undertaking re-blocking work on a national highway. The The company insisted that the death of Balbino was an
plaintiffs insisted that the accident happened because accident brought about by his own negligence, as WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal
the construction company did not provide adequate confirmed by the police investigation report that stated, is hereby GRANTED and the decision appealed from in
lighting on the site, but the latter countered that the fatal among others, that Balbino was not wearing any helmet Civil Case No. P-2117 is hereby REVERSED and SET
accident was caused by the negligence of the motorcycle at that time, and the accident occurred while Balbino was ASIDE. A new judgment is hereby entered ordering the
rider himself. The trial court decided in favor of the overtaking another motorcycle; and that the police report defendant-appellee to pay the plaintiff-appellants, heirs
construction company, but the Court of Appeals (CA) also stated that the road sign/barricade installed on the of the victim Balbino L. B. Lanuzo, the sums of
reversed the decision and ruled for the plaintiffs. road had a light. Thus, it sought the dismissal of the P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P20,000.00 by way of
complaint and prayed, by way of counterclaim, that the temperate damages and P939,736.50 as loss of earning
Hence, this appeal. Nena be ordered to pay P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees, capacity of the deceased Balbino L. B. Lanuzo.
as well as moral damages to be proven in the course of
Antecedents trial. SO ORDERED.5

On January 5, 1998, Nena E. Lanuzo (Nena) filed a The RTC subsequently directed the amendment of the The CA ruled that the following elements for the
complaint for damages1 against BJDC Construction complaint to include the children of Nena and Balbino as
application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur were
(company), a single proprietorship engaged in the co-plaintiffs, namely: Janet, Claudette, Joan Bernabepresent, namely: (1) the accident was of such character
construction business under its Manager/Proprietor and Ryan Jose, all surnamed Lanuzo. Hence, the as to warrant an inference that it would not have
Janet S. de la Cruz. The company was the contractor of plaintiffs are hereinafter be referred to as the Lanuzo
happened except for the defendant’s negligence; (2) the
the re-blocking project to repair the damaged portion of heirs. accident must have been caused by an agency or
one lane of the national highway at San Agustin, Pili, instrumentality within the exclusive management or
Camarines Sur from September 1997to November 1997. Decision of the RTC control of the person charged with the negligence
complained of; and (3) the accident must not have been
Nena alleged that she was the surviving spouse of the On October 8, 2001, the RTC rendered judgment in favor due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of
late Balbino Los Baños Lanuzo (Balbino) who figured in of the company, as follows: the person injured.
the accident that transpired at the site of the re-blocking
work at about 6:30 p.m. on October 30, 1997; that Plaintiffs are the survivors of Balbino Los Baños Lanuzo The CA regarded as self-serving the testimony of
Balbino’s Honda motorcycle sideswiped the road who met a traumatic death on 30 October, 1997 at about Eduardo Zamora, an employee of the company who
barricade placed by the company in the right lane portion 6:30 p.m., when he bumped his motorcycle on a testified that there was an electric bulb placed on top of
of the road, causing him to lose control of his motorcycle barricade that was lighted with an electric bulb, the barricade on the area of the accident. It held that
and to crash on the newly cemented road, resulting in his protecting from traffic the newly-reblocked cement road Zamora’s statement was negated by the statements of
instant death; and that the company’s failure to place between San Agustin and San Jose, Pili, Camarines Sur; Ernesto Alto and Asuncion Sandia to the effect that they
illuminated warning signs on the site of the project, they claim defendant’s OMISSION in lighting up the had passed by the area immediately before the accident
especially during night time, was the proximate cause of barricaded portion of the reblocking project being and had seen the road to be dark and lit only by a gas
the death of Balbino. She prayed that the company be undertaken by defendant was the proximate cause of the lamp. It noted that SPO1 Corporal, the police
held liable for damages, to wit: (a) P5,000.00 as the accident, leaving them bereaved and causing them investigator, had noticed the presence of lighted electric
actual damage to Balbino’s motorcycle; (b) P100,000.00 actual and moral damages. bulbs in the area, but the same had been installed on the
as funeral and burial expenses; (c) P559,786.00 other side of the street opposite the barricade.
representing the "unearned income in expectancy" of Defendant DENIED the claim of plaintiffs; both parties
Balbino; (d) P100,000.00 as moral damages; (e) offered testimonial and documentary evidence, from The CA ruled that the placing of road signs and
P75,000.00 as attorney’s fees, plus P1,500.00 per court which this Court, streamers alone did not prove that the electric bulbs
appearance; and (f) P20,000.00 as litigation costs and were in fact switched on at the time of the accident as to
other incidental expenses. FINDS sufficiently light up the newly re-blocked portion of the
highway. It opined that "[t]he trial court gave undue
In its answer,2 the company denied Nena’s allegations of that: plaintiff DID NOT present an eyewitness account of weight to the self- serving statement of appellee’s
negligence, insisting that it had installed warning signs the death of their decedent; on the contrary, the flagman employee, Eduardo Zamora, which was supposedly
and lights along the highway and on the barricades of of defendant was present when the accident occurred, corroborated by SPO1 Pedro Corporal. SPO1 Corporal
the project; that at the time of the incident, the lights which was caused by the decedent having overtaken a arrived at the scene only after the accident occurred, and
were working and switched on; that its project was duly motorcycle ahead of [him] and on swerving, to avoid the thus the electric bulbs could have already been switched
inspected by the Department of Public Works and barricade, hit it, instead, breaking the lighted electric bulb on by Zamora who was at the area of the project." It
Highways (DPWH), the Office of the Mayor of Pili, and on top of the barricade, resulting in the fall of the concluded that the negligence of the company was the
the Pili Municipal Police Station; and that it was found to decedent about 18 paces from where his motorcycle fell proximate cause of Balbino’s death; hence, the company
have satisfactorily taken measures to ensure the safety on the reblocked pavement; the police investigator, was liable for damages.
of motorists. policeman Corporal, by Exh. 1, confirmed the tale of the
flagman, aside from confirming the presence of the The company filed a motion for reconsideration,6 but the
The company further alleged that since the start of the warning devices placed not only on the premises but at CA denied the motion in the resolution promulgated on
project in September 1997, it installed several warning places calculated to warn motorists of the ongoing November 13, 2003.
signs, namely: (a) big overhead streamers containing the reblocking project.
words SLOW DOWN ROAD UNDER REPAIR AHEAD Issues
In this appeal, the company submits the following issues, had landed "18 paces away" from the barricade that he part of the company was the proximate cause of the fatal
namely: had hit. accident of Balbino.

I. The application by the Honorable On the second requisite, the company argues that Negligence, the Court said in Layugan v. Intermediate
Court of Appeals of the doctrine of res Balbino’s driving and operation of his motorcycle on the Appellate Court,17 is "the omission to do something
ipsa loquitur to the case at bar, despite day of the accident indicated that the accident was not which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations
and contrary to the finding, among within its exclusive management and control; and that as which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs,
others, by the trial court that the to the matters that were within its control, it sufficiently would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and
proximate cause of the accident is the showed its observance of due and reasonable care and reasonable man would not do,18 or as Judge Cooley
victim’s own negligence, is "not in its compliance with the legally prescribed safety defines it, ‘(t)he failure to observe for the protection of
accord with the law or with the requirements. the interests of another person, that degree of care,
applicable decisions of the Supreme precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly
Court" [Sec. 6 (a), Rule 45, Rules of Regarding the third requisite, the company reminds that demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.’"19 In
Court]. Zamora and SPO1 Corporal revealed that Balbino was order that a party may be held liable for damages for any
overtaking another motorcycle rider before hitting the injury brought about by the negligence of another, the
II. The Honorable Court of Appeals, by barricade. The credibility of said witnesses was not claimant must prove that the negligence was the
substituting its own findings of fact and challenged, and their testimonies not rebutted; hence, immediate and proximate cause of the injury. Proximate
conclusion with those of the trial court the CA erred in relying on the recollections of Asuncion cause is defined as "that cause, which, in natural and
despite the lack of "strong or cogent Sandia and Ernesto Alto who were not present when the continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
reasons" therefor, "has so far departed incident took place. Sandia and Alto’s testimonies could intervening cause, produces the injury and without which
from the accepted and usual course of not be accorded more weight than Zamora’s eyewitness the result would not have occurred."20
judicial proceedings ... as to call for an account, considering that the latter was believed by the
exercise of the power of supervision" trial judge who had the first-hand opportunity to observe The test by which the existence of negligence in a
by this Honorable Supreme Court the demeanor of the witnesses. particular case is determined is aptly stated in the
[Sec. 6 (b), Ibid.]. leading case of Picart v. Smith,21 as follows:
Whose negligence was the proximate cause of the death
III. The findings by the Honorable of Balbino? The test by which to determine the existence of
Court of Appeals that respondents negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows:
(appellants therein) "had satisfactorily Ruling of the Court Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use
presented a prima facie case of that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily
negligence which the appellee Inasmuch as the RTC and the CA arrived at conflicting prudent person would have used in the same situation?
(petitioner herein) had not overcome findings of fact on who was the negligent party, the Court If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The law here in
with an adequate explanation" and holds that an examination of the evidence of the parties effect adopts the standard supposed to be supplied by
which alleged negligence is "the needs to be undertaken to properly determine the issue.8 the imaginary conduct of the discreet paterfamilias of the
proximate cause of death of Lanuzo" The Court must ascertain whose evidence was Roman law. The existence of negligence in a given case
are manifestations of grave abuse of preponderant, for Section 1, Rule 133 of the Rules of is not determined by reference to the personal judgment
discretion in the appreciation of facts, Court mandates that in civil cases, like this one, the party of the actor in the situation before him. The law
and constitute a judgment based on a having the burden of proof must establish his case by a considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or
misinterpretation of facts, which justify preponderance of evidence.9 negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and
a review by this Honorable Supreme prudence and determines liability by that.
Court.7 Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence
on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or The question as to what would constitute the conduct of
The company reiterates the categorical finding of the defense by the amount of evidence required by law.10 It a prudent man in a given situation must of course be
RTC that the proximate cause of the accident was is basic that whoever alleges a fact has the burden of always determined in the light of human experience and
Balbino’s own negligence, and that such finding was proving it because a mere allegation is not evidence.11 in view of the facts involved in the particular case.
based on the conclusion stated by SPO1 Corporal in his Generally, the party who denies has no burden to Abstract speculation cannot here be of much value but
investigation report to the effect that the incident was prove.12 In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the party this much can be profitably said: Reasonable men
"purely self accident," and on the unrebutted testimony of who would be defeated if no evidence is given on either govern their conduct by the circumstances which are
Zamora to the effect that Balbino was driving his side.13 The burden of proof is on the plaintiff if the before them or known to them. They are not, and are not
motorcycle at a fast speed trying to overtake another defendant denies the factual allegations of the complaint supposed to be, omniscient of the future. Hence they can
motorcycle rider before hitting the barricade. On the in the manner required by the Rules of Court, but it may be expected to take care only when there is something
other hand, it insists that its documentary and testimonial rest on the defendant if he admits expressly or impliedly before them to suggest or warn of danger.
evidence proved its exercise of due care and observance the essential allegations but raises affirmative defense or
of the legally prescribed safety requirements for defenses, which if proved, will exculpate him from Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration,
contractors. liability.14 foresee harm as a result of the course actually pursued?
If so, it was the duty of the actor to take precautions to
The company maintains that Balbino was familiar with By preponderance of evidence, according to Raymundo guard against that harm. Reasonable foresight of harm,
the re- blocking project that had been going on for v. Lunaria:15 followed by the ignoring of the suggestion born of this
months because he had been passing the area at least prevision, is always necessary before negligence can be
four times a day during weekdays in going to and from x x x is meant that the evidence as a whole adduced by held to exist. Stated in these terms, the proper criterion
his place of work in the morning and in the afternoon; one side is superior to that of the other. It refers to the for determining the existence of negligence in a given
and that he could have avoided the accident had he weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidence on case is this: Conduct is said to be negligent when a
exercised reasonable care and prudence. either side and is usually considered to be synonymous prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would have
with the term "greater weight of evidence" or "greater foreseen that an effect harmful to another was
The company assails the application of the doctrine of weight of the credible evidence." It is evidence which is sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing the conduct
res ipsa loquitur, positing that the Lanuzo heirs did not more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that or guarding against its consequences.
establish all the requisites for the doctrine to apply. which is offered in opposition thereto.
First of all, we note that the Lanuzo heirs argued in the
Anent the first requisite, the company states that the In addition, according to United Airlines, Inc. v. Court of trial and appellate courts that there was a total omission
Lanuzo heirs did not successfully counter its Appeals,16 the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his on the part of the company to place illuminated warning
documentary and testimonial evidence showing that own evidence and not upon the weakness of the signs on the site of the project, especially during night
Balbino’s own negligence had caused the accident. It defendant’s. time, in order to warn motorists of the project. They claim
cites the fact that Balbino was familiar with the road that the omission was the proximate cause of the death
22
conditions and the re-blocking project because he had Upon a review of the records, the Court affirms the of Balbino. In this appeal, however, they contend that
been passing there daily; and that Balbino had been findings of the RTC, and rules that the Lanuzo heirs, the the negligence of the company consisted in its omission
driving too fast and not wearing the required helmet for parties carrying the burden of proof, did not establish by to put up adequate lighting and the required signs to
motorcycle drivers, which were immediately evident preponderance of evidence that the negligence on the warn motorists of the project, abandoning their previous
because he had been thrown from his motorcycle and argument of a total omission to illuminate the project site.
During the trial, the Lanuzo heirs attempted to prove swerved his ridden motorcycle to the right and stumble conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone,
inadequacy of illumination instead of the total omission of down and fell to the concrete cemented road. Victim was calmness, sigh of a witness, or his scant or full
illumination. Their first witness was Cesar Palmero, who rushed to Bicol Medical Center, Naga City for treatment realization of an oath - all of which are useful aids for an
recalled that lights had been actually installed in the site but was pronounced dead on arrival. accurate determination of a witness' honesty and
of the project. sincerity. He can thus be expected to determine with
4.That upon arrival at the scene of the incident it was reasonable discretion which testimony is acceptable and
The next witness was Ernesto Alto, who stated that he noted that road sign/barricade installed on the road has a which witness is worthy of belief.
had seen three light bulbs installed in the site, placed at light.
intervals along the stretch of the road covered by the Absent any showing that the trial court's calibration of the
project. Alto further stated that he had passed the site on 5.That said road was under repair for almost a month credibility of the witnesses was flawed, we are bound by
board his tricycle on October 30, 1997 prior to the which one lane portion of the national highway is its assessment. This Court will sustain such findings
accident, and had seen only a gas lamp, not light bulbs, possible of all passing vehicles from south and north unless it can be shown that the trial court ignored,
on his approach. Another witness of the plaintiffs, bound. overlooked, misunderstood, misappreciated, or
Asuncion Sandia, claimed that she had also passed the misapplied substantial facts and circumstances, which, if
site on board a bus on the night just prior to the accident, 6.That said motorcycle stumble down on the newly repair considered, would materially affect the result of the
25
and had seen the site to be dark, with only one lane portion of the national highway and the driver lying down case.
open to traffic, with no light at all. Obviously, the beside the motorcycle.
witnesses of the plaintiffs were not consistent on their The Court observes, too, that SPO1 Corporal, a veteran
recollections of the significant detail of the illumination of xxxx police officer detailed for more than 17 years at the Pili
the site. Police Station, enjoyed the presumption of regularity in
26
8.That one of the passerby revealed that the victim the performance of his official duties. The presumption,
In contrast, the company credibly refuted the allegation possibly be miscalculated the road block that made him although rebuttable, stands because the Lanuzo heirs
of inadequate illumination. Zamora, its flagman in the to tumble down when he applied sudden brake. did not adduce evidence to show any deficiency or
project, rendered an eyewitness account of the accident irregularity in the performance of his official duty as the
by stating that the site had been illuminated by light IV. FINDINGS/DISCUSSION: police investigator of the accident. They also did not
bulbs and gas lamps, and that Balbino had been in the show that he was impelled by any ill motive or bias to
process of overtaking another motorcycle rider at a fast 9.The time of the incident was at about 6:30 o’clock in testify falsely.
speed when he hit the barricade placed on the newly the evening a time wherein dark of the night is
cemented road. On his part, SPO1 Corporal, the police approaching the vision of the driver is affected with the Thirdly, the CA unreasonably branded the testimonies of
investigator who arrived at the scene of the accident on changing condition and it is all the time when driver Zamora and SPO1 Corporal as "self-serving." They were
October 30, 1997, recalled that there were light bulbs on not. Self-serving evidence refers to out-of-court
should lights his driven vehicle, as to this case, the driver
the other side of the barricade on the lane coming from Balbino Lanuzo y Doe (victim has exercise all statements that favor the declarant’s interest;27 it is
Naga City; and that the light bulb on the lane where the precautionary measures to avoid accident but due to self disfavored mainly because the adverse party is given no
accident had occurred was broken because it had been accident he incidentally sideswiped the road opportunity to dispute the statement and their admission
hit by the victim’s motorcycle. Witnesses Gerry Alejo and sign/barricade of the re: Blocking portion of the national would encourage fabrication of testimony.28 But court
Engr. Victorino del Socorro remembered that light bulbs highway resulting him to stumble down his motorcycle declarations are not self-serving considering that the
and gas lamps had been installed in the area of the and fell down to the concrete cement road. adverse party is accorded the opportunity to test the
project. veracity of the declarations by cross-examination and
10.The driver/victim met unexpectedly (sic) along that other methods.
Secondly, the company presented as its documentary one lane potion of the re: blocking and considering it was
evidence the investigation report dated December 3, night time, confusion overthrew him and because of There is no question that Zamora and SPO1 Corporal
1997 of SPO1 Corporal (Annex 1), the relevant portions sudden impulse, he lost control on the motorcycle he were thoroughly cross-examined by the counsel for the
of which indicated the finding of the police investigator on was driving. Lanuzo heirs. Their recollections remained unchallenged
the presence of illumination at the project site, viz: by superior contrary evidence from the Lanuzo heirs.
11.That the driver/victim has no crush (sic) helmet at the
SUBJECT: Investigation Report Re: Homicide Thru time of the incident considering that it should be a basic Fourthly, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur had no
Reckless Imprudence requirement as to prevent from any accident. application here. In Tan v. JAM Transit, Inc.,29
the Court
has discussed the doctrine thusly:
(Self Accident) V. RECOMMENDATION:
Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase that literally means
xxxx 12.Basing on the above discussion and facts "the thing or the transaction speaks for itself." It is a
surroundings the case was purely self accident resulting maxim for the rule that the fact of the occurrence of an
II.MATTERS INVESTIGATED: to Homicide Thru Reckless Imprudence and the case injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may
must be closed. (Emphasis ours.)23 permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence,
1.To determine how the incident happened. or make out a plaintiff's prima facie case, and present a
Additionally, the company submitted the application for question of fact for defendant to meet with an
2.To determine the vehicle involved. lighting permit covering the project site (Annex 7) to explanation. Where the thing that caused the injury
prove the fact of installation of the electric light bulbs in complained of is shown to be under the management of
III. FACTS OF THE CASE: the project site. the defendant or his servants; and the accident, in the
ordinary course of things, would not happen if those who
3.At 6:45 P.M. October 30, 1997, Elements of Pili had management or control used proper care, it affords
In our view, the RTC properly gave more weight to the
Municipal Police Station led by SPO2 Melchor Estallo, reasonable evidence — in the absence of a sufficient,
testimonies of Zamora and SPO1 Corporal than to those
SPO2 Cesar Pillarda, both members of the patrol section reasonable and logical explanation by defendant — that
of the witnesses for the Lanuzo heirs.1âwphi1 There was
and SPO1 Pedro D. Corporal, investigator reported the accident arose from or was caused by the
justification for doing so, because the greater probability
having conducted an on the spot investigation re: defendant's want of care. This rule is grounded on the
pertained to the former. Moreover, the trial court’s
vehicular incident (Self Accident) that happened on or superior logic of ordinary human experience, and it is on
assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of their
about 6:30 o’clock in the evening of October 30, 1997 the basis of such experience or common knowledge that
testimonies is preferred to that of the appellate court’s
along national highway, San Agustin, Pili, Camarines negligence may be deduced from the mere occurrence
because of the trial court’s unique first-hand opportunity
Sur, wherein one Balbino Lanuzo y Doe, of legal age, of the accident itself. Hence, the rule is applied in
to observe the witnesses and their demeanor as such.
married, a public school teacher, a resident of San Jose, conjunction with the doctrine of common knowledge.
The Court said in Cang v. Cullen:24
Pili, Camarines Sur while driving his Honda motorcycle
110 CC enroute to San Jose, Pili, Camarines Sur from For the doctrine to apply, the following requirements
The findings of the trial court on the credibility of
Poblacion, this municipality and upon reaching at road must be shown to exist, namely: (a) the accident is of a
witnesses are accorded great weight and respect - even
re: blocking portion of the national highway at barangay kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of
considered as conclusive and binding on this Court -
San Agustin, Pili, Camarines Sur and while overtaking someone’s negligence; (b) it is caused by an
since the trial judge had the unique opportunity to
another motorcycle ahead incidentally side-swiped a instrumentality within the exclusive control of the
observe the witness firsthand and note his demeanor,
road sign/barricade installed at the lane road re: blocking defendant or defendants; and (c) the possibility of
conduct and attitude under grueling examination. Only
of the national highway, causing said motorcycle rider to the trial judge can observe the furtive glance, blush of
contributing conduct that would make the plaintiff
responsible is eliminated.30

The Court has warned in Reyes v. Sisters of Mercy

Hospital,31 however, that "res ipsa loquitur is not a rigid
or ordinary doctrine to be perfunctorily used but a rule to
be cautiously applied, depending upon the
circumstances of each case."

Based on the evidence adduced by the Lanuzo heirs,

negligence cannot be fairly ascribed to the company
considering that it has shown its installation of the
necessary warning signs and lights in the project site. In
that context, the fatal accident was not caused by any
instrumentality within the exclusive control of the
company. In contrast, Balbino had the exclusive control
of how he operated and managed his motorcycle. The
records disclose that he himself did not take the
necessary precautions. As Zamora declared, Balbino
overtook another motorcycle rider at a fast speed, and in
the process could not avoid hitting a barricade at the site,
causing him to be thrown off his motorcycle onto the
newly cemented road. SPO1 Corporal’s investigation
report corroborated Zamora’s declaration. This causation
of the fatal injury went uncontroverted by the Lanuzo
heirs.

Moreover, by the time of the accident, the project, which

had commenced in September 1997, had been going on
for more than a month and was already in the completion
stage. Balbino, who had passed there on a daily basis in
going to and from his residence and the school where he
then worked as the principal, was thus very familiar with
the risks at the project site. Nor could the Lanuzo heirs
justly posit that the illumination was not adequate, for it
cannot be denied that Balbino’s motorcycle was
equipped with headlights that would have enabled him at
dusk or night time to see the condition of the road ahead.
That the accident still occurred surely indicated that he
himself did not exercise the degree of care expected of
him as a prudent motorist.

According to Dr. Abilay, the cause of death of Balbino

was the fatal depressed fracture at the back of his head,
an injury that Dr. Abilay opined to be attributable to his
head landing on the cemented road after being thrown
off his motorcycle. Considering that it was shown that
Balbino was not wearing any protective head gear or
helmet at the time of the accident, he was guilty of
negligence in that respect. Had he worn the protective
head gear or helmet, his untimely death would not have
occurred.

The RTC was correct on its conclusions and findings that

the company was not negligent in ensuring safety at the
project site. All the established circumstances showed
that the proximate and immediate cause of the death of
Balbino was his own negligence. Hence, the Lanuzo
heirs could not recover damages.32

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for

review on certiorari; REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the
decision promulgated on August 11, 2003 by the Court of
Appeals; REINSTATES the decision rendered on
October 8, 2001 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 32,
in Pili, Camarines Sur dismissing the complaint; and
MAKES no pronouncements on costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

Associate Justice