Quiz 5 Questions Flashcards
Discussion:
Types of presumption:
(1) Conclusive presumption. Present in lessor-lessee relationships and partnerships.
(2) Rebuttable or disputable presumption.
G.R. No. 173180
1) Discuss the presumption in law when a driver is violating a traffic regulation at the time of the accident.
Article 2185
Driver of Motor Vehicle as Presumed Negligent
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 any traffic regulation.
G.R. No. 173180
2) What should be proven in order for such violation of traffic regulation to be the cause of the injuries due to the accident?
The plaintiff (or claimants in this case) must prove by preponderance of evidence and sustain a claim based on
quasi-delict the concurrence of the following requisites:
(a) damage suffered by the plaintiff;
(b) fault or negligence of defendant; and
(c) connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of
defendant and the damage incurred by the plaintiff.
(Highlight should be element (c)).
These requisites must be proved by a
preponderance of evidence. The claimants, respondents in this case, must, therefore, establish their claim or cause of action by preponderance of evidence, evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it.
(Tison v. Spouses Pomasin, G.R. No. 173180, August 24, 2011)
G.R. No. 173180
3) Does negligence per se always has its legal consequences?
No. Injury/damage must be present.
In Sanitary Steam Laundry, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, we held that a causal connection must exist between the injury received and the violation of the traffic regulation. It must be proven that the violation of the traffic regulation was the proximate or legal cause of the
injury or that it substantially contributed thereto. Negligence, consisting in whole or in part, of violation of law, like any other negligence, is without legal consequence unless it is a contributing
cause of the injury.
In Añonuevo v. Court of Appeals where we reiterated that negligence per se, arising from the mere violation of a traffic statute, need not be sufficient in itself in establishing liability for damages. In said case, Añonuevo, who was driving a car, did not attempt “to establish a causal connection between the safety violations imputed to the injured cyclist, and the accident itself. Instead, he relied on a putative presumption that these violations in
themselves sufficiently established negligence appreciable against the cyclist. Since the onus on Añonuevo is to conclusively prove the link between the violations and the accident, we can deem him as having failed to discharge his necessary burden of proving the cyclist’s own liability.
G.R. No. 181398
4) Under the compulsory motor vehicle registration law, who is directly responsible for the consequences of its operation? Explain.
Under the compulsory motor vehicle registration law, it is the registered owner who is directly responsible for the consequences of its operation.
In accordance with the law on compulsory motor vehicle registration, this Court has consistently ruled that, with respect to the public and third persons, the registered owner of a motor vehicle is directly and primarily responsible for the consequences of its operation regardless of who the actual vehicle owner might be. Well-settled is the rule that the registered owner of the vehicle is liable for quasi-delicts resulting from its use. Thus, even if the vehicle has already been sold, leased, or transferred to another person at the time the vehicle figured in an accident, the registered vehicle owner would still be liable for damages caused by the accident. The sale, transfer or lease of the vehicle, which is not registered with the Land Transportation Office, will not bind third persons aggrieved in an accident involving the vehicle. The compulsory motor vehicle registration underscores the importance of registering the vehicle in the name of the actual owner.
G.R. No. 181398
5) Can a registered owner be allowed to claim the defense that the vehicle had been sold or leased to a third party? Why?
No.
The main aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify the owner so that if any accident happens, or
that any damage or injury is caused by the vehicle on the public highways, responsibility therefor can be fixed on a definite individual, the registered owner. Instances are numerous where vehicles
running on public highways caused accidents or injuries to pedestrians or other vehicles without positive identification of the owner or drivers, or with very scant means of identification. It is to forestall these circumstances, so inconvenient or prejudicial to the public, that the motor vehicle registration is primarily ordained, in the interest of the determination of persons responsible for damages or injuries caused on public highways.
G.R. No. 181398
6) In this case, would FEB Leasing be allowed to collect from the lessee? Why?
Yes, FEB Leasing is allowed to collect from the lessee. But it did not file a cross-claim against BG Haulers, so the Court reasoned that it cannot collect from BG Haulers, its lessee.
Notes:
