Week 4 Case 9 G.R. No. 173180 Flashcards
Owner + driver of trailer truck are driving upwards the curve.
Driver and passengers of the jitney are driving downwards the curve.
Is review of issue of negligence factual in nature? When is the review of facts necessary? What are exceptions to this rule?
Yes, the review of issue of negligence is factual in nature.
Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are generally conclusive but may be reviewed when:
(1) the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory;
(2) the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;
(3) the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
(4) there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;
(5) the appellate court, in making its findings, goes beyond the issues of the case and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(6) the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on a misapprehension of facts;
(7) the Court of Appeals fails to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different
conclusion; and
(8) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court or are mere conclusions without citation of specific evidence, or where the facts set forth by the petitioner are not disputed by respondent, or where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but are contradicted by the evidence on record.
Why is the review of facts usually unnecessary? What is the fundamental principle behind this?
The exceptions to the rule underscore the substance and weight of the findings of the trial court. They render inconclusive contrary findings by the appellate court. The reason is now a fundamental principle:
[A]ppellate courts do not disturb the findings of the trial courts with regard to the assessment of the credibility of witnesses. The reason for this is that trial courts have the ‘unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.
The exceptions to this rule are when the trial court’s findings of facts and conclusions are not supported by the evidence on record, or when certain facts of substance and value, likely to change the outcome of the case, have been overlooked by the trial court, or when the assailed decision is based on a misapprehension of facts.
What is the quantum of evidence required in negligence cases involving collision of motor vehicles (quasi-delict)?
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.
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)
According to the Supreme Court, which vehicle was negligent? And what was the proximate cause of the accident?
According to the Supreme Court, the jitney was negligent.
Jabon’s concentration as driver is more focused than that of a mere passenger. The bases for this are:
(1) The differences in the relative positions of a driver and a passenger; and
(2) The relative position and steepness of the highway portion where the accident happened, which was described “curving and downward” by respondent Gregorio Pomasin.
The proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of Gregorio’s daughter, Laarni.
What is the provision of Article 2185 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines?
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.
How was Article 2185 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines applied as to the liability of Jabon?
How was this reconciled with the jurisprudential ruling in Sanitary Steam Laundry, Inc. v. CA?
How was this reconciled with the jurisprudential ruling in Anonuevo v. CA?
The Court did not lose sight of the fact that at the time of the incident, Jabon was prohibited from driving the truck due to the restriction imposed on his driver’s license, i.e., restriction code 2 and 3. As a matter of fact, Jabon even asked the Land Transportation Office to reinstate his articulated license
containing restriction code 8 which would allow him to drive a tractor-trailer. The Court of Appeals concluded therefrom that Jabon was violating a traffic regulation at the time of the collision.
Driving without a proper license is a violation of traffic regulation. Under Article 2185 of the Civil Code, the legal presumption of negligence arises if at the time of the mishap, a person was violating any traffic regulation. However, 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.
What are the judicial guides in adjudging liabilities in negligence cases?
Qualifications + Article 2185
“Causal connection between safety violations and the accident”
The rule on negligence per se must admit qualifications that may arise from the logical consequences of the facts leading to the mishap. The doctrine (and Article 2185, for that matter) is undeniably useful as a judicial guide in adjudging liability, for it seeks to impute culpability arising from the failure of the actor to perform up to a standard established by a legal fiat. But the doctrine should not be rendered inflexible so as to deny relief when in fact there is no causal relation between
the statutory violation and the injury sustained. Presumptions in law, while convenient, are not intractable so as to forbid rebuttal rooted in fact. After all, tort law is remunerative in spirit, aiming to provide compensation for the harm suffered by those whose interests have been invaded owing to the conduct of other.
Why was Jabon not imputed and not held liable in this case?
In the instant case, no causal connection was established between the tractor-trailer driver’s restrictions on his license to the vehicular collision. Furthermore, Jabon was able to sufficiently explain that the Land Transportation Office merely erred in not including restriction code 8 in his license.
Why was the affidavit of desistance not valuable, especially in this case?
An affidavit of desistance is usually frowned upon by courts. Little or no persuasive value is often attached to a desistance.
The subject affidavit does not deserve a second look more so that it appears that Cynthia was not armed with a special power of attorney to enter into a settlement with petitioners. At any rate, it is an exercise of futility to delve into the effects of the affidavit of desistance executed by one of the respondents since it has already been established that petitioners are not negligent.
