Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50660:gr-161803-2008&amp;catid=1502&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:11:23+00:00

Document:
A.C. No. noxxxxx - DY TEBAN TRADING, INC. v. JOSE CHING, ET AL.
DY TEBAN TRADING, INC., Petitioner, v. JOSE CHING AND/OR LIBERTY FOREST, INC. and CRESILITO M. LIMBAGA, Respondents.
THE vehicular collision resulting in damages and injuries in this case could have been avoided if the stalled prime mover with trailer were parked properly and equipped with an early warning device. It is high time We sounded the call for strict enforcement of the law and regulation on traffic and vehicle registration. Panahon na para mahigpit na ipatupad ang batas at regulasyon sa trapiko at pagpapatala ng sasakyan.
Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) modifying that2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Butuan City finding private respondents Liberty Forest, Inc. and Cresilito Limbaga liable to petitioner Dy Teban Trading, Inc. for damages.
On October 31, 1995, petitioner Nissan van owner filed a complaint for damages8 against private respondents prime mover owner and driver with the RTC in Butuan City. The Joana Paula passenger bus was not impleaded as defendant in the complaint.
e) That defendants Liberty Forest, Inc. and Cresilito M. Limbaga to pay, jointly and solidarily, the costs.
The court finds that the proximate cause of the incidents is the negligence and carelessness attributable to the defendants. When the trailer being pulled by the prime mover suffered two (2) flat tires at Sumilihon, the prime mover and trailer were parked haphazardly, as the right tires of the prime mover were the only ones on the sand and gravel shoulder of the highway while the left tires and all the tires of the trailer were on the cemented pavement of the highway, occupying almost the whole of the right lane on the direction the prime mover and trailer were traveling. The statement of Limbaga that he could not park the prime mover and trailer deeper into the sand and gravel shoulder of the highway to his right because there were banana plants is contradicted by the picture marked Exhibit "F." The picture shows that there was ample space on the shoulder. If defendant Limbaga was careful and prudent enough, he should have the prime mover and trailer traveled more distance forward so that the bodies of the prime mover and trailer would be far more on the shoulder rather than on the cemented highway when they were parked. x x x The court has some doubts on the statement of witness-driver Limbaga that there were banana trunks with leaves and lighted tin cans with crude oil placed 3 strides in front of the prime mover and behind the trailer because the testimonies of witnesses Rogelio C. Ortiz, driver of the ice van, Romeo D. Catamora, helper of the ice van, and Police Traffic Investigator SPO3 Teofilo M. Pame show that there were no banana trunks with leaves and lighted tin cans at the scene of the incident. But even assuming that there were banana trunks with leaves but they were placed close to the prime mover and trailer as they were placed 3 strides away which to the mind of the court is equivalent approximately to 3 meters and with this distance, approaching vehicles would have no sufficient time and space to make a complete stop, especially if the vehicles are heavy and loaded. If there were lighted tin cans, it was not explained by the defendants why the driver, especially driver witness Ortiz, did not see them.
Defendant Liberty Forest, Inc. did not exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in managing and running its business. The evidence on record shows that it failed to provide its prime mover and trailer with the required "early warning devices" with reflectors and it did not keep proper maintenance and condition of the prime mover and the trailer. The circumstances show that the trailer were provided with wornout tires and with only one (1) piece of spare tire. The pictures marked Exhibit "3" and "4" show that two (2) flat tires suffered by the trailer and these two (2) tires were attached to one of the two (2) I-beams or axles attached to the rear of the trailer which axle is very near but behind the other axle and with the location of the 2 I-beams, it would have the other I-beam that would have suffered the flat tires as it has to bear the brunt of weight of the D-8 bulldozer. The bulldozer was not loaded directly above the two (2) I-beams as 2 I-beams, as a pair, were attached at the far rear end of the trailer.
Private respondents appealed to the CA.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision dated August 7, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Butuan City in Civil Case No. 4360 is hereby PARTLY MODIFIED by absolving the defendants-appellants/appellees of any liability to plaintiffs-appellants/appellees by reason of the incident on July 4, 1995.
The dismissal of the case against Jose Ching, the counterclaim of defendants-appellants/appellees and the money claim of Rogelio Ortiz STANDS.
It was stated that the Joana Paula bus in trying to avoid a head-on collision with the truck, sideswept the parked trailer loaded with bulldozer.
Evidently, the driver of the Joana Paula bus was aware of the presence on its lane of the parked trailer with bulldozer. For this reason, it proceeded to occupy what was left of its lane and part of the opposite lane. The truck occupying the opposite lane failed to give way or yield the right of way to the oncoming bus by proceeding with the same speed. The two vehicles were, in effect, trying to beat each other in occupying a single lane. The bus was the first to occupy the said lane but upon realizing that the truck refused to give way or yield the right of way, the bus, as a precaution, geared to its right where the trailer was parked. Unfortunately, the bus miscalculated its distance from the parked trailer and its rear right side hit the protruding blade of the bulldozer then on the top of the parked trailer. The impact of the collision on its right rear side with the blade of the bulldozer threw the bus further to the opposite lane, landing its rear portion on the shoulder of the opposite lane.
Facts of the case reveal that when Ortiz, the driver of the truck, failed to give the Joana Paula bus the space on the road it needed, the latter vehicle scraped its rear right side on the protruded bulldozer blade and the impact threw the bus directly on the path of the oncoming truck. This made plaintiffs-appellants/appellees conclude that the Joana Paula bus occupied its lane which forced Ortiz, the driver of the truck, to swerve to its left and ram the front of the parked trailer.
The trailer was parked because its two (2) rear-left tires were blown out. With a bulldozer on top of the trailer and two (2) busted tires, it would be dangerous and quite impossible for the trailer to further park on the graveled shoulder of the road. To do so will cause the flat car to tilt and may cause the bulldozer to fall from where it was mounted. In fact, it appeared that the driver of the trailer tried its best to park on the graveled shoulder since the right-front tires were on the graveled shoulder of the road.
Likewise, it was incorrect for the lower court to state that there was no warning sign of danger of any kind, most probably referring to the absence of the triangular reflectorized plates. The police sketch clearly indicated the stack of banana leaves placed at the rear of the parked trailer. The trailer's driver testified that they placed kerosene lighted tin can at the back of the parked trailer.
Baliwag's argument that the kerosene lamp or torch does not substantially comply with the law is untenable. The aforequoted law clearly allows the use not only of an early warning device of the triangular reflectorized plates' variety but also parking lights or flares visible one hundred meters away. x x x."
This Court holds that the defendants-appellants/appellees were not negligent in parking the trailer on the scene of the accident. It would have been different if there was only one flat tire and defendant-appellant/appellee Limbaga failed to change the same and left immediately.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, WITHOUT ANY AVAILABLE CONCRETE EVIDENCE, ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINED THAT THERE WERE EARLY WARNING DEVICES PLACED IN FRONT OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS/APPELLEES' TRUCK AND FLAT CAR TO WARN PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT/APPELLEE ROGELIO ORTIZ OF THEIR PRESENCE.
WITH DUE RESPECT, IT IS HIGH TIME TO ENFORCE THE LAW ON EARLY WARNING DEVICES IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
The meat of the petition is whether or not the prime mover is liable for the damages suffered by the Nissan van. The RTC ruled in the affirmative holding that the proximate cause of the vehicular collision was the negligence of Limbaga in parking the prime mover on the national highway without an early warning device on the vehicle. The CA reversed the RTC decision, holding that the proximate cause of the collision was the negligence of Ortiz in not yielding to the right of way of the passenger bus.
There is no dispute that the Nissan van suffered damage. That is borne by the records and conceded by the parties. The outstanding issues are negligence and proximate cause. Tersely put, the twin issues are: (a) whether or not prime mover driver Limbaga was negligent in parking the vehicle; and (b) whether or not his negligence was the proximate cause of the damage to the Nissan van.
Limbaga was negligent in parking the prime mover on the national highway; he failed to prevent or minimize the risk to oncoming motorists.
The test of negligence is objective. We measure the act or omission of the tortfeasor with that of an ordinary reasonable person in the same situation. The test, as applied to this case, is whether Limbaga, in parking the prime mover, used that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary reasonable person would have used in the same situation.
We find that Limbaga was utterly negligent in parking the prime mover askew on the right side of the national highway. The vehicle occupied a substantial portion of the national road on the lane of the passenger bus. It was parked at the shoulder of the road with its left wheels still on the cemented highway and the right wheels on the sand and gravel shoulder of the highway. It is common sense that the skewed parking of the prime mover on the national road posed a serious risk to oncoming motorists. It was incumbent upon Limbaga to take some measures to prevent that risk, or at least minimize it.
Limbaga also admitted on cross-examination that it was his first time to drive the prime mover with trailer loaded with a D-8 caterpillar bulldozer.21 We find that private respondent Liberty Forest, Inc. was utterly negligent in allowing a novice driver, like Limbaga, to operate a vehicle, such as a truck loaded with a bulldozer, which required highly specialized driving skills. Respondent employer clearly failed to properly supervise Limbaga in driving the prime mover.
The RTC noted that private respondent Liberty Forest, Inc. also failed to keep the prime mover in proper condition at the time of the collision. The prime mover had worn out tires. It was only equipped with one spare tire. It was for this reason that Limbaga was unable to change the two blown out tires because he had only one spare. The bulldozer was not even loaded properly on the prime mover, which caused the tire blowouts.
All told, We agree with the RTC that private respondent Limbaga was negligent in parking the prime mover on the national highway. Private respondent Liberty Forest, Inc. was also negligent in failing to supervise Limbaga and in ensuring that the prime mover was in proper condition.
The case of Baliwag Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals is inapplicable; Limbaga did not put lighted kerosene tin cans on the front and rear of the prime mover.
Anent the absence of an early warning device on the prime mover, the CA erred in accepting the bare testimony of Limbaga that he placed kerosene lighted tin cans on the front and rear of the prime mover. The evidence on records belies such claim. The CA reliance on Baliwag Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals22 as authority for the proposition that kerosene lighted tin cans may act as substitute early warning device is misplaced.
Second, SPO4 Pame, who investigated the collision, testified24 that only banana leaves were placed on the front and rear of the prime mover. He did not see any lighted tin cans in the immediate vicinity of the collision.
A. We placed a piece of cloth on tin cans and filled them with crude oil. And these tin cans were lighted and they are like torches. These two lights or torches were placed in front and at the rear side of the prime mover with trailer. After each torch, we placed banana trunk. The banana trunk is placed between the two (2) torches and the prime mover, both on the rear and on the front portion of the prime mover.
Q. How far was the lighted tin cans with wick placed in front of the prime mover.
At this point, we will be objecting to questions particularly referring to the alleged tin cans as some of the warning-sign devices, considering that there is no allegation to that effect in the answer of the defendants. The answer was just limited to the numbers 4 & 5 of the answer. And, therefore, if we follow the rule of the binding effect of an allegation in the complaint, then the party will not be allowed to introduce evidence to attack jointly or rather the same, paragraph 5 states, warning device consisting of 3 banana trunks, banana items and leaves were filed. He can be cross-examined in the point, Your Honor.
We thus agree with the RTC that Limbaga did not place lighted tin cans on the front and rear of the prime mover. We give more credence to the traffic incident report and the testimony of SPO4 Pame that only banana leaves were placed on the vehicle. Baliwag Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals26 thus finds no application to the case at bar.
The skewed parking of the prime mover was the proximate cause of the collision.
It may be that ordinarily, when a passenger bus overturns, and pins down a passenger, merely causing him physical injuries, if through some event, unexpected and extraordinary, the overturned bus is set on fire, say, by lightning, or if some highwaymen after looting the vehicle sets it on fire, and the passenger is burned to death, one might still contend that the proximate cause of his death was the fire and not the overturning of the vehicle. But in the present case and under the circumstances obtaining in the same, we do not hesitate to hold that the proximate cause of the death of Bataclan was the overturning of the bus, this for the reason that when the vehicle turned not only on its side but completely on its back, the leaking of the gasoline from the tank was not unnatural or unexpected; that the coming of the men with a lighted torch was in response to the call for help, made not only by the passengers, but most probably, by the driver and the conductor themselves, and that because it was very dark (about 2:30 in the morning), the rescuers had to carry a light with them; and coming as they did from a rural area where lanterns and flashlights were not available, they had to use a torch, the most handy and available; and what was more natural than that said rescuers should innocently approach the overturned vehicle to extend the aid and effect the rescue requested from them. In other words, the coming of the men with the torch was to be expected and was natural sequence of the overturning of the bus, the trapping of some of its passengers' bus, the trapping of some of its passengers and the call for outside help.
The ruling in Bataclan has been repeatedly cited in subsequent cases as authority for the proposition that the damage or injury must be a natural or probable result of the act or omission. Here, We agree with the RTC that the damage caused to the Nissan van was a natural and probable result of the improper parking of the prime mover with trailer. As discussed, the skewed parking of the prime mover posed a serious risk to oncoming motorists. Limbaga failed to prevent or minimize that risk. The skewed parking of the prime mover triggered the series of events that led to the collision, particularly the swerving of the passenger bus and the Nissan van.
Private respondents Liberty Forest, Inc. and Limbaga are liable for all damages that resulted from the skewed parking of the prime mover. Their liability includes those damages resulting from precautionary measures taken by other motorist in trying to avoid collision with the parked prime mover. As We see it, the passenger bus swerved to the right, onto the lane of the Nissan van, to avoid colliding with the improperly parked prime mover. The driver of the Nissan van, Ortiz, reacted swiftly by swerving to the left, onto the lane of the passenger bus, hitting the parked prime mover. Ortiz obviously would not have swerved if not for the passenger bus abruptly occupying his van's lane. The passenger bus, in turn, would not have swerved to the lane of the Nissan van if not for the prime mover improperly parked on its lane. The skewed parking is the proximate cause of the damage to the Nissan van.
The conclusion we draw from the factual circumstances outlined above is that private respondent Dionisio was negligent the night of the accident. He was hurrying home that night and driving faster than he should have been. Worse, he extinguished his headlights at or near the intersection of General Lacuna and General Santos Streets and thus did not see the dump truck that was parked askew and sticking out onto the road lane.
Nonetheless, we agree with the Court of First Instance and the Intermediate Appellate Court that the legal and proximate cause of the accident and of Dionisio's injuries was the wrongful or negligent manner in which the dump truck was parked - in other words, the negligence of petitioner Carbonel. That there was a reasonable relationship between petitioner Carbonel's negligence on the one hand and the accident and respondent's injuries on the other hand, is quite clear. Put in a slightly different manner, the collision of Dionisio's car with the dump truck was a natural and foreseeable consequence of the truck driver's negligence.
We cannot rule on the proportionate or contributory liability of the passenger bus, if any, because it was not a party to the case; joint tortfeasors are solidarily liable.
The CA also faults the passenger bus for the vehicular collision. The appellate court noted that the passenger bus was "aware" of the presence of the prime mover on its lane, but it still proceeded to occupy the lane of the Nissan van. The passenger bus also miscalculated its distance from the prime mover when it hit the vehicle.
We cannot definitively rule on the proportionate or contributory liability of the Joana Paula passenger bus vis - Ã -vis the prime mover because it was not a party to the complaint for damages. Due process dictates that the passenger bus must be given an opportunity to present its own version of events before it can be held liable. Any contributory or proportionate liability of the passenger bus must be litigated in a separate action, barring any defense of prescription or laches. Insofar as petitioner is concerned, the proximate cause of the collision was the improper parking of the prime mover. It was the improper parking of the prime mover which set in motion the series of events that led to the vehicular collision.
According to the great weight of authority, where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omission of two or more persons, although acting independently of each other, are, in combination, the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third person and it is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury, either is responsible for the whole injury, even though his act alone might not have caused the entire injury, or the same damage might have resulted from the acts of the other tort-feasor x x x.
It may be said, as a general rule, that negligence in order to render a person liable need not be the sole cause of an injury. It is sufficient that his negligence, concurring with one or more efficient causes other than plaintiff's, is the proximate cause of the injury. Accordingly, where several causes combine to produce injuries, a person is not relieved from liability because he is responsible for only one of them, it being sufficient that the negligence of the person charged with injury is an efficient cause without which the injury would not have resulted to as great an extent, and that such cause is not attributable to the person injured. It is no defense to one of the concurrent tortfeasors that the injury would not have resulted from his negligence alone, without the negligence or wrongful acts of the other concurrent tortfeasors. Where several causes producing an injury are concurrent and each is an efficient cause without which the injury would not have happened, the injury may be attributed to all or any of the causes and recovery may be had against any or all of the responsible persons although under the circumstances of the case, it may appear that one of them was more culpable, and that the duty owed by them to the injured person was not the same. No actor's negligence ceases to be a proximate cause merely because it does not exceed the negligence of other actors. Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and is liable as though his acts were the sole cause of the injury.
All told, all the elements of quasi delict have been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The CA erred in absolving private respondents from liability for the vehicular collision.
It is lamentable that the vehicular collision in this case could have been easily avoided by following basic traffic rules and regulations and road safety standards. In hindsight, private respondent Limbaga could have prevented the three-way vehicular collision if he had properly parked the prime mover on the shoulder of the national road. The improper parking of vehicles, most especially along the national highways, poses a serious and unnecessary risk to the lives and limbs of other motorists and passengers. Drivers owe a duty of care to follow basic traffic rules and regulations and to observe road safety standards. They owe that duty not only for their own safety, but also for that of other motorists. We can prevent most vehicular accidents by simply following basic traffic rules and regulations.
The Land Transportation Office (LTO) owes a duty to the public to ensure that all vehicles on the road meet basic and minimum safety features, including that of early warning devices. It is most unfortunate that We still see dilapidated and rundown vehicles on the road with substandard safety features. These vehicles not only pose a hazard to the safety of their occupants but that of other motorists. The prime mover truck in this case should not have been granted registration because it failed to comply with the minimum safety features required for vehicles on the road.
It is, indeed, time for traffic enforcement agencies and the LTO to strictly enforce all pertinent laws and regulations within their mandate.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals decision dated August 28, 2003 is hereby SET ASIDE. The RTC decision dated August 7, 2001 is REINSTATED IN FULL.
Ynares-Santiago, J., Chairperson, Austria-Martinez, Corona *, Nachura, JJ., concur.
* Vice Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario. Justice Nazario is on official leave per Special Order No. 484 dated January 11, 2008.
13 G.R. No. 116110, May 15, 1996, 256 SCRA 746.
15 Id. at 26, 29.
16 Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97626, March 14, 1997, 269 SCRA 695, 702-703.
17 Corliss v. Manila Railroad Company, G.R. No. L-21291, March 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 674, 680.
18 37 Phil. 809, 813 (1918).
27 Vda. de Bataclan v. Medina, 102 Phil. 181 (1957), citing 38 Am. Jur. 695-696.
28 Mercury Drug v. Baking, G.R. No. 156037, May 25, 2007.
30 G.R. No. L-65295, March 10, 1987, 148 SCRA 353, 365-367.
31 G.R. No. 159270, August 22, 2005, 467 SCRA 569, 582-583.
32 Rollo, pp. 29-30. Letter of Instruction No. 229.
33 Id. at 32-34. Memorandum Circular Nos. 92-146.
34 Id. at 31-32. LTO Memorandum dated October 16, 1995.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.