Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
FACTS:
Respondent Castano boarded a jeep driven by Petitioner
Montefalcon who thereafter drove it at around 40
kilometers per hour. While approaching Sumasap Bridge
at the said speed, a cargo truck coming from behind,
blowing its horn to signal its intention to overtake the jeep.
The jeep, without changing its speed, gave way by
swerving to the right, such that both vehicles ran side by
side for a distance of around 20 meters. Thereafter as the
jeep was left behind, its driver was unable to return it to its
former lane and instead it obliquely or diagonally ran
down an inclined terrain towards the right until it fell into
a ditch pinning down and crushing Castanos right leg in
the
process.
Castano filed a case for damages against Rosita Bacarro,
William Sevilla, and Felario Montefalcon. Defendants
alleged that the jeepney was sideswiped by the overtaking
cargo truck. After trial, the CFI of Misamis Oriental
ordered Bacarro, et.al. to jointly and severally pay
Castano. It was affirmed by the CA upon appeal.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not there was a contributory negligence on
the part of the jeepney driver.
2. Whether or not extraordinary diligence is required of
the jeepney driver.
3. Whether or not the sideswiping is a fortuitous event.
HELD:
1.) Yes. X x x. The fact is, petitioner-driver Montefalcon did
not slacken his speed but instead continued to run the jeep
at about forty (40) kilometers per hour even at the time the
overtaking cargo truck was running side by side for about
twenty (20) meters and at which time he even shouted to
the driver of the truck.
Thus, had Montefalcon slackened the speed of the jeep at
the time the truck was overtaking it, instead of running
side by side with the cargo truck, there would have been
no contact and accident. He should have foreseen that at
the speed he was running, the vehicles were getting nearer
the bridge and as the road was getting narrower the truck
would be too close to the jeep and would eventually
sideswiped it. Otherwise stated, he should have slackened
his jeep when he swerved it to the right to give way to the
truck because the two vehicles could not cross the bridge
at the same time.
2.) Yes. x x x [T]he fact is, there was a contract of carriage
between the private respondent and the herein petitioners
in which case the Court of Appeals correctly applied
Articles 1733, 1755 and 1766 of the Civil Code which
require the exercise of extraordinary diligence on the part
of petitioner Montefalcon.
W/N
Gatchalian
is
entitled
to
damages
ISSUES:
1. W/N the carrier is liable for the manufacturing defect of
the steering knuckle
2. W/N the evidence discloses that in regard thereto the
carrier exercised the diligence required by law.
HELD: Yes for both.
While the carrier is not an insurer of the safety of the
passengers, the manufacturer of the defective appliance is
considered in law the agent of the carrier, and the good
repute of the manufacturer will not relieve the carrier from
liability. The rationale of the carriers liability is the fact
that the passengers has no privity with the manufacturer
of the defective equipment; hence he has no remedy
against him, while the carrier has. We find that the defect