8epubllc of Lhe hlllpplnes

SUkLML CCUk1
Manlla
SLCCnu ulvlSlCn
G.k. No. 173180 August 24, 2011
AL8Lk1 1ISCN and CLAUDIC L. IA8CN, eLlLloners,
vs.
SS. GkLGCkIC CMASIN and CCNSCkCIA CNCL CMASIN, DIANNL CMASIN AGUNSAN,
CN1nIA CMASIN, SCNIA LkCL, AN1CNIC SLSIS1A, GINA SLSIS1A, and kLNALDC
SLSIS1A, 8espondenLs.

u L C l S l C n
LkL2, !"#
1wo vehlcles, a LracLor-Lraller and a [lLney,
1
flgured ln a vehlcular mlshap along Maharllka
Plghway ln 8arangay Agos, olangul, Albay lasL 12 AugusL 1994. Laarnl omasln (Laarnl) was
drlvlng Lhe [lLney Lowards Lhe dlrecLlon of Legaspl ClLy whlle Lhe LracLor-Lraller, drlven by
Claudlo !abon (!abon), was Lraverslng Lhe opposlLe lane golng Lowards naga ClLy.
2

1he opposlng parLles gave Lwo dlfferenL verslons of Lhe lncldenL.
Cregorlo omasln (Cregorlo), Laarnl's faLher, was on board Lhe [lLney and seaLed on Lhe
passenger's slde. Pe LesLlfled LhaL whlle Lhe [lLney was passlng Lhrough a curve golng
downward, he saw a LracLor-Lraller comlng from Lhe opposlLe dlrecLlon and encroachlng on Lhe
[lLney's lane. 1he [lLney was hlL by Lhe LracLor-Lraller and lL was dragged furLher causlng deaLh
and ln[urles Lo lLs passengers.
3

Cn Lhe oLher hand, !abon recounLed LhaL whlle he was drlvlng Lhe LracLor-Lraller, he noLlced a
[lLney on Lhe opposlLe lane falllng off Lhe shoulder of Lhe road. 1hereafLer, lL began runnlng ln a
zlgzag manner and headlng Lowards Lhe dlrecLlon of Lhe Lruck. 1o avold colllslon, !abon
lmmedlaLely swerved Lhe LracLor-Lraller Lo Lhe rlghL where lL hlL a Lree and sacks of palay.
unforLunaLely, Lhe [lLney sLlll hlL Lhe lefL fender of Lhe LracLor-Lraller before lL was Lhrown a few
meLers away. 1he LracLor-Lraller was llkewlse damaged.
4

MulLlple deaLh and ln[urles Lo Lhose ln Lhe [lLney resulLed.
Cregorlo was ln[ured and broughL Lo Lhe Albay rovlnclal PosplLal ln Legaspl ClLy. Pls daughLer,
Andrea omasln agunsan, slsLer narclsa omasln 8oncales and Abraham ulonlslo erol dled
on Lhe spoL. Pls oLher daughLer Laarnl, Lhe [lLney drlver, and granddaughLer Annle !ane
omasln agunsan explred aL Lhe hosplLal. Pls wlfe, Consorcla omasln, anoLher granddaughLer
ulanne omasln agunsan, 8lcky once, vlcenLe omasln, Clna SeslsLa, 8eynaldo SeslsLa,
AnLonlo SeslsLa and Sonla erol susLalned ln[urles.
3
Cn Lhe oLher hand, !abon and one of Lhe
passengers ln Lhe LracLor-Lraller were ln[ured.
6

AlberL 1lson (1lson), Lhe owner of Lhe Lruck, exLended flnanclal asslsLance Lo respondenLs by
glvlng Lhem1,000.00 each lmmedlaLely afLer Lhe accldenL and 200,000.00 Lo CynLhla omasln
(CynLhla), one of Cregorlo's daughLers. CynLhla, ln Lurn, execuLed an AffldavlL of ueslsLance.
Cn 14 november 1994, respondenLs flled a complalnL for damages agalnsL peLlLloners before
Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL (81C) of AnLlpolo. 1hey alleged LhaL Lhe proxlmaLe cause of Lhe
accldenL was Lhe negllgence, lmprudence and carelessness of peLlLloners. 8espondenLs prayed
for lndemnlflcaLlon for Lhe helrs of Lhose who perlshed ln Lhe accldenL aL 30,000.00
each, 300,000.00 for hosplLallzaLlon, medlcal and burlal expenses, 330,000.00 for conLlnuous
hosplLallzaLlon and medlcal expenses of Spouses omasln, 1,000,000.00 as moral
damages,230,000.00 as exemplary damages, 30,000.00 for loss of lncome of
CynLhla, 100,000.00 as aLLorney's fees plus 1,000.00 per courL appearance, 30,000.00 for
llLlgaLlon expenses, and cosL of sulL.
7

ln Lhelr Answer, peLlLloners counLered LhaL lL was Laarnl's negllgence whlch proxlmaLely caused
Lhe accldenL. 1hey furLher clalmed LhaL CynLhla was auLhorlzed by Spouses omasln Lo enLer
lnLo an amlcable seLLlemenL by execuLlng an AffldavlL of ueslsLance. noLwlLhsLandlng Lhe
affldavlL, peLlLloners complalned LhaL respondenLs flled Lhe lnsLanL complalnL Lo harass Lhem
and proflL from Lhe recklessness of Laarnl. eLlLloners counLerclalmed for damages.
eLlLloners subsequenLly flled a moLlon Lo dlsmlss Lhe complalnL ln vlew of Lhe AffldavlL of
ueslsLance execuLed by CynLhla. 1he moLlon was denled for lack of merlL.
8

Cn 7 lebruary 2000, Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL rendered [udgmenL ln favor of peLlLloners
dlsmlsslng Lhe complalnL for damages, Lhe dlsposlLlve porLlon of whlch reads:
WPL8LlC8L, [udgmenL ls hereby rendered ln favor of Lhe defendanLs and agalnsL plalnLlffs
hereby ulSMlSSlnC Lhe lnsLanL complalnL conslderlng LhaL plalnLlffs have auLhorlzed CynLhla
omasln Lo seLLle Lhe case amlcably for200,000.00, and LhaL Lhe proxlmaLe cause of Lhe
accldenL dld noL arlse from Lhe faulL or negllgence of defendanLs' drlver/employee buL from
plalnLlff's drlver.
9

1he Lrlal courL consldered Lhe LesLlmony of !abon regardlng Lhe lncldenL more convlnclng and
rellable Lhan LhaL of Cregorlo's, a mere passenger, whose observaLlon and aLLenLlon Lo Lhe road
ls noL as focused as LhaL of Lhe drlver. 1he Lrlal courL concluded LhaL Laarnl caused Lhe colllslon
of Lhe [lLney and Lhe LracLor-Lraller. 1he Lrlal courL llkewlse upheld Lhe AffldavlL of ueslsLance as
havlng been execuLed wlLh Lhe LaclL consenL of respondenLs.
1he CourL of Appeals dlsagreed wlLh Lhe Lrlal courL and ruled LhaL Lhe reckless drlvlng of !abon
caused Lhe vehlcular colllslon. ln supporL of such flndlng, Lhe CourL of Appeals relled heavlly on
Cregorlo's LesLlmony LhaL !abon was drlvlng Lhe LracLor-Lraller downward Loo fasL and lL
encroached Lhe lane of Lhe [lLney. 8ased on Lhe gravlLy of Lhe lmpacL and Lhe damage caused Lo
Lhe [lLney resulLlng ln Lhe deaLh of some passengers, Lhe CourL of Appeals lnferred LhaL !abon
musL be speedlng. 1he appellaLe courL noLed LhaL Lhe resLrlcLlon ln !abon's drlver's llcense was
vlolaLed, Lhus, glvlng rlse Lo Lhe presumpLlon LhaL he was negllgenL aL Lhe Llme of Lhe accldenL.
1lson was llkewlse held llable for damages for hls fallure Lo prove due dlllgence ln supervlslng
!abon afLer he was hlred as drlver of Lhe Lruck. llnally, Lhe appellaLe courL dlsregarded Lhe
AffldavlL of ueslsLance execuLed by CynLhla because Lhe laLLer had no wrlLLen power of
aLLorney from respondenLs and LhaL she was so confused aL Lhe Llme when she slgned Lhe
affldavlL LhaL she dld noL read lLs conLenL.
1he dlsposlLlve porLlon of Lhe assalled ueclslon sLaLes:
WPL8LlC8L, Lhe presenL appeal ls granLed, and Lhe Lrlal courL's ueclslon daLed lebruary 7,
2003 ls seL aslde. uefendanLs-appellees are ordered Lo pay plalnLlffs-appellanLs or Lhelr helrs
Lhe followlng:
a) AcLual damages of 136,000.00 as above compuLed, Lo be offseL wlLh
Lhe 200,000.00 recelved by plalnLlff-appellanL CynLhla omasln,
b) Clvll lndemnlLy of 30,000.00 for Lhe deaLh of each vlcLlm, Lo be offseL wlLh Lhe
balance of 64,000.00 from Lhe aforemenLloned 200,000.00 of clvll lndemnlLy recelved
by plalnLlff-appellanL CynLhla omasln. Pence, Lhe neL amounL ls compuLed
aL 37,200.00 each, as follows:
narclsa omasln 37,200.00
Laarnl omasln 37,200.00
Andrea . agunsan 37,200.00
ulonlslo erol 37,200.00
Annle !ane . agunsan 37,200.00
c) Moral damages of 30,000.00 Lo each of Lhe vlcLlms, and
d) ALLorney's fees of 10 of Lhe LoLal award.
10

eLlLloners flled a MoLlon for 8econslderaLlon, whlch was, however, denled by Lhe CourL of
Appeals ln a 8esoluLlon
11
daLed 19 !uly 2006.
1he peLlLlon for revlew ralses mlxed quesLlons of facL and law whlch lead back Lo Lhe very lssue
llLlgaLed by Lhe Lrlal courL: Who ls Lhe negllgenL parLy or Lhe parLy aL faulL?
1he lssue of negllgence ls facLual ln naLure.
12
And Lhe rule, and Lhe excepLlons, ls LhaL facLual
flndlngs of Lhe CourL of Appeals are generally concluslve buL may be revlewed when: (1) Lhe
facLual flndlngs of Lhe CourL of Appeals and Lhe Lrlal courL are conLradlcLory, (2) Lhe flndlngs are
grounded enLlrely on speculaLlon, surmlses or con[ecLures, (3) Lhe lnference made by Lhe CourL
of Appeals from lLs flndlngs of facL ls manlfesLly mlsLaken, absurd or lmposslble, (4) Lhere ls
grave abuse of dlscreLlon ln Lhe appreclaLlon of facLs, (3) Lhe appellaLe courL, ln maklng lLs
flndlngs, goes beyond Lhe lssues of Lhe case and such flndlngs are conLrary Lo Lhe admlsslons of
boLh appellanL and appellee, (6) Lhe [udgmenL of Lhe CourL of Appeals ls premlsed on a
mlsapprehenslon of facLs, (7) Lhe CourL of Appeals falls Lo noLlce cerLaln relevanL facLs whlch, lf
properly consldered, wlll [usLlfy a dlfferenL concluslon, and (8) Lhe flndlngs of facL of Lhe CourL
of Appeals are conLrary Lo Lhose of Lhe Lrlal courL or are mere concluslons wlLhouL clLaLlon of
speclflc evldence, or where Lhe facLs seL forLh by Lhe peLlLloner are noL dlspuLed by respondenL,
or where Lhe flndlngs of facL of Lhe CourL of Appeals are premlsed on Lhe absence of evldence
buL are conLradlcLed by Lhe evldence on record.
13

1he excepLlons Lo Lhe rule underscore Lhe subsLance and welghL of Lhe flndlngs of Lhe Lrlal
courL. 1hey render lnconcluslve conLrary flndlngs by Lhe appellaLe courL. 1he reason ls now a
fundamenLal prlnclple:
[A]ppellaLe courLs do noL dlsLurb Lhe flndlngs of Lhe Lrlal courLs wlLh regard Lo Lhe assessmenL
of Lhe credlblllLy of wlLnesses. 1he reason for Lhls ls LhaL Lrlal courLs have Lhe 'unlque
opporLunlLy Lo observe Lhe wlLneses flrsL hand and noLe Lhelr demeanor, conducL and aLLlLude
under grllllng examlnaLlon.
1he excepLlons Lo Lhls rule are when Lhe Lrlal courL's flndlngs of facLs and concluslons are noL
supporLed by Lhe evldence on record, or when cerLaln facLs of subsLance and value, llkely Lo
change Lhe ouLcome of Lhe case, have been overlooked by Lhe Lrlal courL, or when Lhe assalled
declslon ls based on a mlsapprehenslon of facLs.
14

1hls lnLerplay of rules and excepLlons ls more pronounced ln Lhls case of quasl-dellcL ln whlch,
accordlng Lo ArLlcle 2176 of Lhe Clvll Code, whoever by acL or omlsslon causes damage Lo
anoLher, Lhere belng faulL or negllgence, ls obllged Lo pay for Lhe damage done. 1o susLaln a
clalm based on quasl-dellcL, Lhe followlng requlslLes musL concur: (a) damage suffered by Lhe
plalnLlff, (b) faulL or negllgence of defendanL, and (c) connecLlon of cause and effecL beLween
Lhe faulL or negllgence of defendanL and Lhe damage lncurred by Lhe plalnLlff.
13
1hese
requlslLes musL be proved by a preponderance of evldence.
16
1he clalmanLs, respondenLs ln Lhls
case, musL, Lherefore, esLabllsh Lhelr clalm or cause of acLlon by preponderance of evldence,
evldence whlch ls of greaLer welghL, or more convlnclng Lhan LhaL whlch ls offered ln opposlLlon
Lo lL.
17

1he Lrlal courL found LhaL Lhe [lLney drlver was negllgenL. We glve welghL Lo Lhls flndlng greaLer
Lhan Lhe opposlLe concluslon reached by Lhe appellaLe courL LhaL Lhe drlver of Lhe LracLor-
Lraller caused Lhe vehlcular colllslon.
Cne reason why Lhe Lrlal courL found credlble Lhe verslon of !abon was because hls
concenLraLlon as drlver ls more focused Lhan LhaL of a mere passenger. 1he Lrlal courL
expounded, Lhus:
ln Lhe appreclaLlon of Lhe LesLlmony of eye-wlLnesses, one overrldlng conslderaLlon ls Lhelr
opporLunlLy for observaLlon ln geLLlng Lo know or acLually seelng or observlng Lhe maLLer Lhey
LesLlfy Lo. 1hls mosL parLlcularly holds Lrue ln vehlcular colllslon or accldenL cases whlch
ofLenLlmes happen merely momenLarlly or ln Lhe spllL of a second. ln Lhe case of a runnlng or
Lravelllng vehlcle, especlally ln hlghway Lravel whlch doubLless lnvolves fasLer speed Lhan ln
ordlnary roads, Lhe drlver ls concenLraLed on hls drlvlng conLlnuously from momenL Lo momenL
even ln long Lrlps. Whlle ln Lhe case of a mere passenger, he does noL have Lo dlrecL hls
aLLenLlon Lo Lhe safe conducL of Lhe Lravelllng vehlcle, as ln facL he may converse wlLh oLher
passengers and pay no aLLenLlon Lo Lhe drlvlng or safe conducL of Lhe Lravelllng vehlcle, as he
may even doze off Lo sleep lf he wanLs Lo, renderlng hls opporLunlLy for observaLlon on Lhe
preclse cause of Lhe accldenL or colllslon or lmmedlaLely precedlng LhereLo noL as much as LhaL
of Lhe drlver whose aLLenLlon ls conLlnuously focused on hls drlvlng. So LhaL as beLween Lhe
respecLlve verslons of Lhe plalnLlffs Lhru Lhelr passenger and LhaL of Lhe defendanLs Lhru Lhelr
drlver as Lo Lhe cause or anLecedenL causes LhaL led Lo Lhe vehlcular colllslon ln Lhls case, Lhe
verslon of Lhe drlver of defendanL should ordlnarlly be more rellable Lhan Lhe verslon of a mere
passenger of lalnLlffs' vehlcle, slmply because Lhe aLLenLlon of Lhe passenger ls noL as much
concenLraLed on Lhe drlvlng as LhaL of Lhe drlver, consequenLly Lhe capaclLy for observaLlon of
Lhe laLLer of Lhe laLLer on Lhe maLLer LesLlfled Lo whlch ls Lhe preclse polnL of lnqulry --- Lhe
proxlmaLe cause of Lhe accldenL --- ls more reasonably rellable. Moreover, Lhe passenger's
vlslon ls noL as good as LhaL of Lhe drlver from Lhe vanLage polnL of Lhe drlver's seaL especlally
ln nlghLLlme, Lhus renderlng a passenger's opporLunlLy for observaLlon on Lhe anLecedenL
causes of Lhe colllslon lesser Lhan LhaL of Lhe drlver. 1hls belng so, Lhls CourL ls more lncllned Lo
belleve Lhe sLory of defendanL's drlver Claudlo !abon LhaL Lhe [lLney drlven by Laarnl omasln
fell off Lhe shoulder of Lhe curved road causlng lL Lo run LhereafLer ln a zlgzag manner and ln Lhe
process Lhe Lwo vehlcles approachlng each oLher from opposlLe dlrecLlons aL hlghway speed
came ln conLacL wlLh each oLher, Lhe zlgzagglng [eep hlLLlng Lhe lefL fender of Lhe Lruck all Lhe
way Lo Lhe fuel Lank, Lhe vlolenL lmpacL resulLlng ln Lhe llghLer vehlcle, Lhe [lLney, belng Lhrown
away due Lo Lhe dlsparaLe slze of Lhe Lruck.
18

1he appellaLe courL labelled Lhe Lrlal courL's raLlonallzaLlon as a "sweeplng con[ecLure"
19
and
counLered LhaL Cregorlo was acLually occupylng Lhe fronL seaL of Lhe [lLney and had acLually a
clear vlew of Lhe lncldenL desplLe Lhe facL LhaL he was noL drlvlng.
Whlle lL ls loglcal LhaL a drlver's aLLenLlon Lo Lhe road Lravelled ls keener Lhan LhaL of a mere
passenger, lL should also be consldered LhaL Lhe loglc wlll hold only lf Lhe Lwo are slmllarly
clrcumsLanced, and only as a general rule, so LhaL, lL does noL necessarlly follow LhaL beLween
Lhe opposlng LesLlmonles of a drlver and a passenger, Lhe former ls more credlble. 1he facLual
seLLlng of Lhe evenL LesLlfled on musL cerLalnly be consldered.
1he Lrlal courL dld [usL LhaL ln Lhe lnsLanL case. ConLrary Lo Lhe observaLlon of Lhe CourL of
Appeals, Lhe relaLlve poslLlons of a drlver and a passenger ln a vehlcle was noL Lhe only basls of
analysls of Lhe Lrlal courL. noLably, aslde from !abon's alleged vanLage polnL Lo clearly observe
Lhe lncldenL, Lhe Lrlal courL also Look lnLo conslderaLlon Cregorlo's admlsslon LhaL prlor Lo Lhe
accldenL, Lhe [lLney was runnlng on Lhe "curvlng and downward" porLlon of Lhe hlghway. 1he
appellaLe courL, however, Look lnLo accounL Lhe oLher and opposlLe LesLlmony of Cregorlo LhaL
lL was Lhelr [lLney LhaL was golng uphlll and when lL was abouL Lo reach a curve, he saw Lhe
lncomlng Lruck runnlng very fasL and encroachlng Lhe [lLney's lane.
We perused Lhe LranscrlpL of sLenographlc noLes and found LhaL Lhe Lruck was acLually
ascendlng Lhe hlghway when lL colllded wlLh Lhe descendlng [lLney.
uurlng Lhe dlrecL examlnaLlon, !abon narraLed LhaL Lhe LracLor-Lraller was ascendlng aL a speed
of 33 Lo 40 kllomeLers per hour when he saw Lhe [lLney on Lhe opposlLe lane runnlng ln a zlgzag
manner, Lhus:
C: now, when you passed by Lhe munlclpallLy of olangul, Albay aL abouL 3:00 of AugusL 12,
1994, could you Lell Lhe CourL lf Lhere was any unLoward lncldenL LhaL happened?
A: 1here was slr.
C: Could you please Lell Lhe CourL?
A: Whlle on my way Lo Llboro comlng from Sorsogon, l meL on my way a vehlcle golng on a
zlgzag dlrecLlon and lL even fell on Lhe shoulder and proceeded golng on lLs way on a zlgzag
dlrecLlon.
C: Could you descrlbe Lo Lhe CourL whaL was Lhe klnd of vehlcle you saw runnlng ln zlgzag
dlrecLlon?
A: A 1oyoLa-[lLney loaded wlLh passengers wlLh Lop-load.
C: ?ou sald LhaL Lhe Lop[-]load of Lhe [eep ls loaded?
A: ?es, slr.
C: Could you please Lell Lhe CourL whaL was your speed aL Lhe Llme when you saw LhaL [eepney
wlLh Lop[-]load runnlng on a zlgzag manner?
A: l was runnlng 33 Lo 40 kllomeLers per hour because l was ascendlng plaln. (Lmphasls
supplled).
20

ln LhaL same dlrecL examlnaLlon, !abon conflrmed LhaL he was ascendlng, vlz:
C: Could you please descrlbe Lhe condlLlon ln Lhe area aL Lhe Llme of Lhe lncldenL, was lL dark or
day Llme?
A: lL was sLlll brlghL.
CCu81: 8uL lL was noL approachlng sunseL?
A: ?es, slr.
C: Was Lhere any raln aL LhaL Llme?
A: none slr.
C: So Lhe road was dry?
A: ?es slr.
C: ?ou sald you were ascendlng Lowards Lhe dlrecLlon of Llboro, Camarlnes Sur, ls LhaL correcL
aL Lhe Llme Lhe lncldenL happened?
A: ?es slr.
21
(Lmphasls supplled).
upon Lhe oLher hand, Cregorlo, durlng hls dlrecL examlnaLlon descrlbed Lhe road condlLlon
where Lhe colllslon Look place as "curvlng and downward," Lhus:
C: Could you please descrlbe Lhe place where Lhe lncldenL happened ln so far as Lhe road
condlLlon ls concerned?
A: 1he road was curvlng and downward.
C: And Lhe road was of course clear from Lrafflc, ls LhaL correcL?
A: ?es slr.
C: And pracLlcally, your [lLney was Lhe only car runnlng aL LhaL Llme?
A: ?es slr.
22
(Lmphasls supplled).
SlgnlflcanLly, Lhls ls a conflrmaLlon of Lhe LesLlmony of !abon.
Powever, on rebuLLal, Cregorlo Lurned around and sLaLed LhaL Lhe [lLney was golng uphlll when
he saw Lhe LracLor-Lraller runnlng down very facL and encroachlng on Lhelr lane, Lo wlL:
C: Mr. Claudlo !abon, Lhe drlver of Lhe Lraller Lruck LhaL colllded wlLh your owner [eepney LhaL
you were rldlng LesLlfled ln open CourL on !uly 24, 1997 whlch l quoLe, 'whlle on my way Lo
Llboro comlng Lo Sorsogon l meL a vehlcle golng on a zlg-zag dlrecLlon and lL even fell on Lhe
shoulder and proceeded golng on lLs way on zlg-zag dlrecLlon', whaL can you say abouL Lhls
sLaLemenL of Lhls wlLness?
A: We were no[L] zlgzagglng buL because we were golng uphlll and abouL Lo reach a curved (slc)
we saw Lhe on-comlng vehlcle golng down very fasL and encroachlng on our lane so our drlver
swerved our vehlcle Lo Lhe rlghL buL sLlll we were hlL by Lhe on-comlng vehlcle.
23
(Lmphasls
supplled).
1he declaraLlon of !abon wlLh respecL Lo Lhe road condlLlon was sLralghLforward and
conslsLenL.!"#$ &'( )(*+,,(*-.+/ +0 1)(2+).+ 3(()(4 0)+5 6*7)3./2 "/4 4+#/#")46 -+
7$'.,,8
9:
;/ -'.< $+./-= >"?+/ "/4 '.< -(<-.5+/@ .< 5+)( *)(4.?,(8
1he facL LhaL Lhe [lLney easlly fell lnLo Lhe road shoulder, an undebaLed facL, supporLs Lhe Lrlal
courL's concluslon LhaL Lhe [lLney was lndeed golng downhlll whlch, lL may be repeaLed, was Lhe
orlglnal LesLlmony of Cregorlo LhaL Lhe road was "curvlng and downward."
23
lL ls Lhls
concluslon, prodded by Lhe lnconslsLency of Cregorlo's LesLlmony, LhaL glves credence Lo Lhe
furLher LesLlmony of !abon LhaL Lhe hereln respondenL's [lLney, "loaded wlLh passengers wlLh
Lop-load" "was runnlng ln a zlgzag manner."
26

Colng downward, Lhe [lLney had Lhe Lendency Lo acceleraLe. 1he fall lnLo Lhe shoulder of Lhe
road can resulL ln Lhe loss of conLrol of Lhe [lLney, whlch explalns why lL was runnlng ln a zlgzag
manner before lL hlL Lhe LracLor-Lraller.
1here was no showlng LhaL Lhe LracLor-Lraller was speedlng. 1here ls a preponderance of
evldence LhaL Lhe LracLor-Lraller was ln facL ascendlng. Conslderlng lLs slze and Lhe welghL of Lhe
LracLor-Lraller, lLs speed could noL be more Lhan LhaL of a fully loaded [lLney whlch was runnlng
downhlll ln a zlgzagglng manner.
nelLher can lL be lnferred LhaL !abon was negllgenL. ln hlndslghL, lL can be argued LhaL !abon
should have swerved Lo Lhe rlghL upon seelng Lhe [lLney zlgzagglng before lL colllded wlLh Lhe
LracLor-Lraller. AccldenLs, Lhough, happen ln an lnsLanL, and, undersLandably ln Lhls case,
leavlng Lhe drlver wlLhouL sufflclenL Llme and space Lo maneuver a vehlcle Lhe slze of a LracLor-
Lraller uphlll and away from colllslon wlLh Lhe [lLney oncomlng downhlll.
Clearly, Lhe negllgence of Cregorlo's daughLer, Laarnl was Lhe proxlmaLe cause of Lhe accldenL.
We dld noL lose slghL of Lhe facL LhaL aL Lhe Llme of Lhe lncldenL, !abon was prohlblLed from
drlvlng Lhe Lruck due Lo Lhe resLrlcLlon lmposed on hls drlver's llcense, l.e., resLrlcLlon code 2
and 3. As a maLLer of facL, !abon even asked Lhe Land 1ransporLaLlon Cfflce Lo relnsLaLe hls
arLlculaLed llcense conLalnlng resLrlcLlon code 8 whlch would allow hlm Lo drlve a LracLor-Lraller.
1he CourL of Appeals concluded Lherefrom LhaL !abon was vlolaLlng a Lrafflc regulaLlon aL Lhe
Llme of Lhe colllslon.
urlvlng wlLhouL a proper llcense ls a vlolaLlon of Lrafflc regulaLlon. under ArLlcle 2183 of Lhe
Clvll Code, Lhe legal presumpLlon of negllgence arlses lf aL Lhe Llme of Lhe mlshap, a person was
vlolaLlng any Lrafflc regulaLlon. Powever, ln SanlLary SLeam Laundry, lnc. v. CourL of
Appeals,
27
we held LhaL a causal connecLlon musL exlsL beLween Lhe ln[ury recelved and Lhe
vlolaLlon of Lhe Lrafflc regulaLlon. lL musL be proven LhaL Lhe vlolaLlon of Lhe Lrafflc regulaLlon
was Lhe proxlmaLe or legal cause of Lhe ln[ury or LhaL lL subsLanLlally conLrlbuLed LhereLo.
negllgence, conslsLlng ln whole or ln parL, of vlolaLlon of law, llke any oLher negllgence, ls
wlLhouL legal consequence unless lL ls a conLrlbuLlng cause of Lhe ln[ury.
28
Llkewlse conLrolllng
ls our rullng ln Anonuevo v. CourL of Appeals
29
where we relLeraLed LhaL negllgence $() <(,
arlslng from Lhe mere vlolaLlon of a Lrafflc sLaLuLe, need noL be sufflclenL ln lLself ln esLabllshlng
llablllLy for damages. ln sald case, Anonuevo, who was drlvlng a car, dld noL aLLempL "Lo
esLabllsh a causal connecLlon beLween Lhe safeLy vlolaLlons lmpuLed Lo Lhe ln[ured cycllsL, and
Lhe accldenL lLself. lnsLead, he relled on a puLaLlve presumpLlon LhaL Lhese vlolaLlons ln
Lhemselves sufflclenLly esLabllshed negllgence appreclable agalnsL Lhe cycllsL. Slnce Lhe onus on
Anonuevo ls Lo concluslvely prove Lhe llnk beLween Lhe vlolaLlons and Lhe accldenL, we can
deem hlm as havlng falled Lo dlscharge hls necessary burden of provlng Lhe cycllsL's own
llablllLy."
30
We Look Lhe occaslon Lo sLaLe LhaL:
1he rule on negllgence $() <( musL admlL quallflcaLlons LhaL may arlse from Lhe loglcal
consequences of Lhe facLs leadlng Lo Lhe mlshap. 1he docLrlne (and ArLlcle 2183, for LhaL
maLLer) ls undenlably useful as a [udlclal gulde ln ad[udglng llablllLy, for lL seeks Lo lmpuLe
culpablllLy arlslng from Lhe fallure of Lhe acLor Lo perform up Lo a sLandard esLabllshed by a
legal flaL. 8uL Lhe docLrlne should noL be rendered lnflexlble so as Lo deny rellef when ln facL
Lhere ls no causal relaLlon beLween Lhe sLaLuLory vlolaLlon and Lhe ln[ury susLalned.
resumpLlons ln law, whlle convenlenL, are noL lnLracLable so as Lo forbld rebuLLal rooLed ln
facL. AfLer all, LorL law ls remuneraLlve ln splrlL, almlng Lo provlde compensaLlon for Lhe harm
suffered by Lhose whose lnLeresLs have been lnvaded owlng Lo Lhe conducL of oLher.
31

ln Lhe lnsLanL case, no causal connecLlon was esLabllshed beLween Lhe LracLor-Lraller drlver's
resLrlcLlons on hls llcense Lo Lhe vehlcular colllslon. lurLhermore, !abon was able Lo sufflclenLly
explaln LhaL Lhe Land 1ransporLaLlon Cfflce merely erred ln noL lncludlng resLrlcLlon code 8 ln
hls llcense.
eLlLloners presenLed Lhe AffldavlL of ueslsLance execuLed by CynLhla Lo exoneraLe Lhem from
any llablllLy. An affldavlL of deslsLance ls usually frowned upon by courLs. LlLLle or no persuaslve
value ls ofLen aLLached Lo a deslsLance.
32
1he sub[ecL affldavlL does noL deserve a second look
more so LhaL lL appears LhaL CynLhla was noL armed wlLh a speclal power of aLLorney Lo enLer
lnLo a seLLlemenL wlLh peLlLloners. AL any raLe, lL ls an exerclse of fuLlllLy Lo delve lnLo Lhe
effecLs of Lhe affldavlL of deslsLance execuLed by one of Lhe respondenLs slnce lL has already
been esLabllshed LhaL peLlLloners are noL negllgenL.
WnLkLICkL, the pet|t|on |s GkAN1LD. 1he cha||enged Dec|s|on and keso|ut|on of the Court
of Appea|s are kLVLkSLD and SL1 ASIDL. C|v|| Case No. 94-3418 |odged before the keg|ona|
1r|a| Court of Ant|po|o C|ty, 8ranch 74, |s DISMISSLD for |ack of mer|t.
SC CkDLkLD.