Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 159270. August 22, 2005
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Petitioners,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, RODRIGO ARNAI, REGINA LATAGAN, RICARDO GENERALAO !"#
PAMPANGA SUGAR DE$ELOPMENT COMPAN%, INC., CORPORATION, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CALLE&O, SR., J.'
This is a petition for revie on certiorari of the Decision! of the Court of "ppeals #C"$ in C"%&.R. CV No.
'()** affir+in,, ith +odification, the decision of the Re,ional Trial Court #RTC$ of -anila in Civil Case
No. *.%)'/0..
The "ntecedents
Pa+pan,a Su,ar Develop+ent Co+pan1, Inc. #P"S2DECO$ transports su,arcane fro+ -abalacat and
-a,alan,, Pa+pan,a. 3hen the -ount Pinatubo eruption of !**! heavil1 da+a,ed the national brid,es
alon, "bacan%"n,eles and Sapan, -ara,ul via -a,alan,, Pa+pan,a, it re4uested per+ission fro+ the
Toll Re,ulator1 5oard #TR5$ for its truc6s to enter and pass throu,h the North 7u8on E9pressa1
#N7E:$ via Dau%Sta. Ines fro+ -abalacat, and via "n,eles fro+ -a,alan,, and e9it at San ;ernando
,oin, to its +illin, factor1.< The TR5 furnished the Philippine National Construction Corporation #PNCC$
#the franchisee that operates and +aintains the toll facilities in the North and South 7u8on Toll
E9pressa1s$ ith a cop1 of the said re4uest for it to co++ent thereon..
On Nove+ber =, !**!, TR5 and P"S2DECO entered into a -e+orandu+ of ",ree+ent' #-O"$, here
the latter as alloed to enter and pass throu,h the N7E: on the folloin, ter+s and conditions>
!. P"S2DECO truc6s should +ove in convo1?
<. Said truc6s ill sta1 on the ri,ht lane?
.. " vehicle ith blin6in, li,hts should be assi,ned at the rear end of the convo1 ith a si,n hich should
read as follos> Caution> CONVO@ "AE"DBBB?
'. Tolla1 safet1 +easures should be properl1 observed?
=. "ccidents or da+a,es to the toll facilities arisin, out of an1 activit1 related to this approval shall be the
responsibilit1 of P"S2DECO?
). P"S2DECO shall be responsible in toin, their stalled truc6s i++ediatel1 to avoid an1 inconvenience to
the other +otorists?
(. This re4uest ill be in force onl1 hile the national brid,es alon, "bacan%"n,eles and Sapan,
-ara,ul via-a,alan, re+ain i+passable.
P"S2DECO furnished the PNCC ith a cop1 of the -O".= In a 7etter) dated October <<, !**<, the PNCC
infor+ed P"S2DECO that it interposed no obCection to the -O".
"t around <>.0 a.+. on Danuar1 <., !**., "le9 Sendin, the PNCC securit1 supervisor, and his co%
e+plo1ees Eduardo Ducusin and Vicente Pascual ere patrollin, E+. (< ,oin, north of the N7E:. The1
sa a pile of su,arcane in the +iddle portion of the north and southbound lanes of the road.( The1 placed
lit cans ith diesel oil in the north and southbound lanes, includin, lane dividers ith reflectori8ed
+ar6in,s, to arn +otorists of the obstruction. Sendin, Ducusin and Pascual proceeded to the P"S2DECO
office, believin, that the pile of su,arcane belon,ed to it since it as the onl1 +illin, co+pan1 in the area.
The1 re4uested for a pa1loader or ,rader to clear the area. Aoever, En,ineer Oscar -allari,
P"S2DECOFs e4uip+ent supervisor and transportation superintendent, told the+ that no e4uip+ent
operator as available as it as still ver1 earl1./Nonetheless, -allari told the+ that he ould send
so+eone to clear the affected area. Thereafter, Sendin and co+pan1 ent bac6 to E+. (< and +anned the
traffic. "t around '>00 a.+., five #=$ P"S2DECO +en arrived, and started clearin, the hi,ha1 of the
su,arcane. The1 stac6ed the su,arcane at the side of the road. The +en left the area at around =>'0 a.+.,
leavin, a fe flattened su,arcanes scattered on the road. "s the bul6 of the su,arcanes had been piled
and transferred alon, the roadside, Sendin thou,ht there as no lon,er a need to +an the traffic. "s dan
as alread1 approachin,, Sendin and co+pan1 re+oved the li,hted cans and lane dividers.* Sendin ent
to his office in Sta. Rita, &ui,uinto, 5ulacan, and +ade the necessar1 report.!0
"t about )>.0 a.+., Rodri,o S. "rnai8, a certified +echanic and +ar6etin, +ana,er of DETT@ -ar6etin,,
Inc.,!!as drivin, his to%door To1ota Corolla ith plate nu+ber ;"& *)! alon, the N7E: at about )=
6ilo+eters per hour.!< Ae as ith his sister Re,ina 7ata,an, and his friend Ricardo &eneralao? the1 ere
on their a1 to 5a,uio to attend their ,rand+otherFs first death anniversar1. !. "s the vehicle ran over the
scattered su,arcane, it fle out of control and turned turtle several ti+es. The accident thre the car about
fifteen paces aa1 fro+ the scattered su,arcane.
Police Investi,ator De+etrio "rcilla investi,ated the +atter and sa blac6 and hite su,arcanes on the
road, on both lanes, hich appeared to be flattened.!'
On -arch ', !**., "rnai8, 7ata,an and &eneralao filed a co+plaint!= for da+a,es a,ainst P"S2DECO
and PNCC in the RTC of -anila, 5ranch !). The case as doc6eted as Civil Case No. *.%)'/0.. The1
alle,ed, inter alia, that throu,h its ne,li,ence, PNCC failed to 6eep and +aintain the N7E: safe for
+otorists hen it alloed P"S2DECO truc6s ith uncovered and unsecured su,arcane to pass throu,h it?
that P"S2DECO ne,li,entl1 spilled su,arcanes on the N7E:, and PNCC failed to put up e+er,enc1
devices to sufficientl1 arn approachin, +otorists of the e9istence of such spilla,e? and that the co+bined
,ross ne,li,ence of P"S2DECO and PNCC as the direct and pro9i+ate cause of the inCuries sustained
b1 7ata,an and the da+a,e to "rnai8Fs car. The1 pra1ed, thus>
3AERE;ORE, it is respectfull1 pra1ed that, after due hearin,, Cud,+ent be rendered for the plaintiffs,
orderin, the defendants Cointl1 and severall1>
#a$ To pa1 unto plaintiff Rodri,o "rnai8 the su+ of P!00,000.00 representin, the value of his car hich as
totall1 rec6ed?
#b$ to pa1 unto plaintiff Re,ina 7ata,an the su+ of P!00,000.00 b1 a1 of rei+burse+ent for +edical
e9penses, the su+ of P=0,000.00 b1 a1 of +oral da+a,es, and the su+ of P.0,000.00 b1 a1 of
e9e+plar1 da+a,es?
#c$ To pa1 unto plaintiffs Rodri,o "rnai8 and Ricardo &eneralao the su+ of P=,000.00 b1 a1 of
rei+burse+ent for +edical e9penses? and
#d$ To pa1 unto the plaintiffs the su+ of P.0,000.00 b1 a1 of attorne1Fs fees? plus the costs of suit.
Plaintiffs pra1 for other reliefs hich the Aonorable Court +a1 find due the+ in the pre+ises.!)
In its "nser,!( PNCC ad+itted that it as under contract to +ana,e the North 7u8on E9pressa1, to 6eep
it safe for +otorists. It averred that the +ishap as due to the Gunreasonable speedG at hich "rnai8Fs car
as runnin,, causin, it to turn turtle hen it passed over so+e pieces of flattened su,arcane. It clai+ed
that the pro9i+ate cause of the +ishap as P"S2DECOFs ,ross ne,li,ence in spillin, the su,arcane, and
its failure to clear and +op up the area co+pletel1. It also alle,ed that "rnai8 as ,uilt1 of contributor1
ne,li,ence in drivin, his car at such speed.
The PNCC interposed a co+pulsor1 counterclai+!/ a,ainst the plaintiffs and cross%clai+!* a,ainst its co%
defendant P"S2DECO.
P"S2DECO adduced evidence that aside fro+ it, there ere other su,arcane +ills in the area, li6e the
"RC"- Su,ar Central #for+erl1 6non as Pa+pan,a Su,ar -ills$ and the Central "8ucarrera de
Tarlac?<0 it as onl1 throu,h the e9pressa1 that a vehicle could access these three #.$ su,ar
centrals?<! and P"S2DECO as obli,ated to clear spilla,es hether the plantersF truc6 hich caused the
spilla,e as bound for P"S2DECO, "RC"- or Central "8ucarera.<<
On rebuttal, PNCC adduced evidence that onl1 plantersF truc6s ith GPSDG +ar6in,s ere alloed to use
the tolla1?<. that all such truc6s ould surel1 enter the P"S2DECO co+pound. Thus, the truc6 hich
spilled su,arcane in Danuar1 !**. in E+. (< as on its a1 to the P"S2DECO co+pound.<'
On Nove+ber !!, !**', the RTC rendered its decision<= in favor of 7ata,an, dis+issin, that of "rnai8 and
&eneralao for insufficienc1 of evidence. The case as a,ainst the PNCC as, li6eise, dis+issed. The
decretal portion of the decision reads>
3AERE;ORE, PRE-ISES CONSIDERED, Cud,+ent is hereb1 rendered>
I. ORDERIN& defendant P"S2DECO>
!. To pa1 plaintiff Re,ina 7ata,an>
a. P<=,000 H for actual da+a,es
b. P!=,000 H for +oral da+a,es
c. P !0,000 H for attorne1Fs fees
P=0,000
<. To pa1 costs of suit.
II. The case is DIS-ISSED as to defendant PNCC. No pronounce+ent as to costs. Its counterclai+ is,
li6eise, DIS-ISSED.
III. The clai+s for da+a,es of plaintiffs Rodri,o "rnai8 and Ricardo &eneralao are hereb1 DIS-ISSED for
insufficienc1 of evidence.
SO ORDERED.<)
5oth the plaintiffs "rnai8, 7ata,an and &eneralao and defendant P"S2DECO appealed the decision to the
C". Since the plaintiffs failed to file their brief, the C" dis+issed their appeal.<(
Resolvin, P"S2DECOFs appeal, the C" rendered Cud,+ent on "pril <*, <00., affir+in, the RTC decision
ith +odification. The appellate court ruled that "rnai8 as ne,li,ent in drivin, his car, but that such
ne,li,ence as +erel1 contributor1 to the cause of the +ishap, i.e., P"S2DECOFs failure to properl1
supervise its +en in clearin, the affected area. Its supervisor, -allari, ad+itted that he as at his house
hile their +en ere clearin, E+. (<. Thus, the appellate court held both P"S2DECO and PNCC, Cointl1
and severall1, liable to 7ata,an. The decretal portion of the decision reads>
3AERE;ORE, pre+ises considered, the assailed DECISION is hereb1 -ODI;IED and Cud,+ent is hereb1
rendered declarin, P"S2DECO and PNCC, Cointl1 and solidaril1, liable>
!. To pa1 plaintiff Re,ina 7ata,an>
a. P<=,000 H for actual da+a,es
b. P!=,000 H for +oral da+a,es
c. P!0,000 H for attorne1Fs fees
<. To pa1 costs of suit.
SO ORDERED. </
The PNCC, no the petitioner, filed a petition for revie on certiorari under Rule '= of the Revised Rules of
Court, alle,in, that>
TAE AONOR"57E CO2RT O; "PPE"7S ERRED IN -ODI;@IN& TAE DECISION O; TAE TRI"7
CO2RT "ND -"EIN& PETITIONER PNCC, DOINT7@ "ND ISO7ID"RI7@J, 7I"57E 3ITA PRIV"TE
RESPONDENT P"S2DECO.<*
The petitioner asserts that the trial court as correct hen it held that P"S2DECO should be held liable for
the +ishap, since it had assu+ed such responsibilit1 based on the -O" beteen it and the TR5. The
petitioner relies on the trial courtFs findin, that onl1 P"S2DECO as ,iven a per+it to pass throu,h the
route.
The petitioner insists that the respondents failed to prove that it as ne,li,ent in the operation and
+aintenance of the N7E:. It +aintains that it had done its part in clearin, the e9pressa1 of su,arcane
piles, and that there ere no +ore piles of su,arcane alon, the road hen its +en left E+. (<? onl1 a fe
scattered su,arcanes flattened b1 the passin, +otorists ere left. "n1 liabilit1 arisin, fro+ an1 +ishap
related to the spilled su,arcanes should be borne b1 P"S2DECO, in accordance ith the -O" hich
provides that Gaccidents or damages to the toll facilities arising out of any activity related to this approval
shall be the responsibility of PASUDECO.G
The petitioner also ar,ues that the respondents should bear the conse4uences of their on fault or
ne,li,ence, and that the pro9i+ate and i++ediate cause of the +ishap in 4uestion as respondent
"rnai8Fs rec6less i+prudence or ,ross ne,li,ence.
The Court notes that the issues raised in the petition are factual in nature. 2nder Rule '= of the Rules of
Court, onl1 4uestions of la +a1 be raised in this Court, and hile there are e9ceptions to the rule, no such
e9ception is present in this case. On this ,round alone, the petition is destined to fail. The Court, hoever,
has revieed the records of the case, and finds that the petition is bereft of +erit.
The petitioner is the ,rantee of a franchise, ,ivin, it the ri,ht, privile,e and authorit1 to construct, operate
and +aintain toll facilities coverin, the e9pressa1s, collectivel1 6non as the N7E:..0 Conco+itant
thereto is its ri,ht to collect toll fees for the use of the said e9pressa1s and its obli,ation to 6eep it safe for
+otorists.
There are three ele+ents of a 4uasi%delict> #a$ da+a,es suffered b1 the plaintiff? #b$ fault or ne,li,ence of
the defendant, or so+e other person for hose acts he +ust respond? and #c$ the connection of cause and
effect beteen the fault or ne,li,ence of the defendant and the da+a,es incurred b1 the plaintiff. .! "rticle
<!() of the Ne Civil Code provides>
"rt. <!(). 3hoever b1 act or o+ission causes da+a,e to another, there bein, fault or ne,li,ence, is
obli,ed to pa1 for the da+a,e done. Such fault or ne,li,ence, if there is no pre%e9istin, contractual relation
beteen the parties, is called a 4uasi%delict and is ,overned b1 the provisions of this Chapter.
Ne,li,ence is the o+ission to do so+ethin, hich a reasonable +an, ,uided b1 those considerations
hich ordinaril1 re,ulate the conduct of hu+an affairs, ould do, or the doin, of so+ethin, hich a prudent
and reasonable +an ould do..< It also refers to the conduct hich creates undue ris6 of har+ to another,
the failure to observe that de,ree of care, precaution and vi,ilance that the circu+stance Custl1 de+and,
hereb1 that other person suffers inCur1... The Court declared the test b1 hich to deter+ine the e9istence
of ne,li,ence in Picart v. Smith,.' vi>
The test b1 hich to deter+ine the e9istence of ne,li,ence in a particular case +a1 be stated as follos>
Did the defendant in doin, the alle,ed ne,li,ent act use that reasonable care and caution hich an
ordinaril1 prudent person ould have used in the sa+e situationK If not, then he is ,uilt1 of ne,li,ence. The
la here in effect adopts the standard supposed to be supplied b1 the i+a,inar1 conduct of the
discreet paterfamilias of the Ro+an la. The e9istence of ne,li,ence in a ,iven case is not deter+ined b1
reference to the personal Cud,+ent of the actor in the situation before hi+. The la considers hat ould
be rec6less, bla+eorth1, or ne,li,ent in the +an of ordinar1 intelli,ence and prudence and deter+ines
liabilit1 b1 that.
The test for deter+inin, hether a person is ne,li,ent in doin, an act hereb1 inCur1 or da+a,e results to
the person or propert1 of another is this> could a prudent +an, in the position of the person to ho+
ne,li,ence is attributed, foresee har+ to the person inCured as a reasonable conse4uence of the course
actuall1 pursuedK If so, the la i+poses a dut1 on the actor to refrain fro+ that course or to ta6e
precautions to ,uard a,ainst its +ischievous results, and the failure to do so constitutes ne,li,ence.
Reasonable foresi,ht of har+, folloed b1 the i,norin, of the ad+onition born of this provision, is ala1s
necessar1 before ne,li,ence can be held to e9ist..=
In the case at bar, it is clear that the petitioner failed to e9ercise the re4uisite dili,ence in +aintainin, the
N7E: safe for +otorists. The li,hted cans and lane dividers on the hi,ha1 ere re+oved even as
flattened su,arcanes la1 scattered on the ,round..) The hi,ha1 as still et fro+ the Cuice and sap of the
flattened su,arcanes..( The petitioner should have foreseen that the et condition of the hi,ha1 ould
endan,er +otorists passin, b1 at ni,ht or in the ee hours of the +ornin,.
The petitioner cannot escape liabilit1 under the -O" beteen P"S2DECO and TR5, since respondent
7ata,an as not a part1 thereto. 3e a,ree ith the folloin, rulin, of the C">
5oth defendants, appellant P"S2DECO and appellee PNCC, should be held liable. PNCC, in char,e of the
+aintenance of the e9pressa1, has been ne,li,ent in the perfor+ance of its duties. The obli,ation of
PNCC should not be rele,ated to, b1 virtue of a private a,ree+ent, to other parties.
PNCC declared the area free fro+ obstruction since there ere no piles of su,arcane, but evidence shos
there ere still pieces of su,arcane stal6s left flattened b1 +otorists. There +ust be an observance of that
de,ree of care, precaution, and vi,ilance hich the situation de+ands. There should have been sufficient
arnin, devices considerin, that there ere scattered su,arcane stal6s still left alon, the tolla1.
The records sho, and as ad+itted b1 the parties, that "rnai8Fs car ran over scattered su,arcanes spilled
fro+ a hauler truc6../
-oreover, the -O" refers to accidents or damages to the toll facilities. !t does not cover damages to
property or in"uries caused to motorists on the #$E% &ho are not privies to the 'OA.
P"S2DECOFs ne,li,ence in transportin, su,arcanes ithout proper harnessLstraps, and that of PNCC in
re+ovin, the e+er,enc1 arnin, devices, ere to successive ne,li,ent acts hich ere the direct and
pro9i+ate cause of 7ata,anFs inCuries. "s such, P"S2DECO and PNCC are Cointl1 and severall1 liable. "s
the Court held in the vinta,e case of Sabido v. Custodio>.*
"ccordin, to the ,reat ei,ht of authorit1, here the concurrent or successive ne,li,ent acts or o+ission of
to or +ore persons, althou,h actin, independentl1 of each other, are, in co+bination, the direct and
pro9i+ate cause of a sin,le inCur1 to a third person and it is i+possible to deter+ine in hat proportion
each contributed to the inCur1, either is responsible for the hole inCur1, even thou,h his act alone +i,ht not
have caused the entire inCur1, or the sa+e da+a,e +i,ht have resulted fro+ the acts of the other tort%
feasor. ...
In (ar Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of Appeals,'0 the Court declared that the liabilit1 of Coint
tortfeasors is Coint and solidar1, to it>
It +a1 be said, as a ,eneral rule, that ne,li,ence in order to render a person liable need not be the sole
cause of an inCur1. It is sufficient that his ne,li,ence, concurrin, ith one or +ore efficient causes other
than plaintiffMs, is the pro9i+ate cause of the inCur1. "ccordin,l1, here several causes co+bine to produce
inCuries, a person is not relieved fro+ liabilit1 because he is responsible for onl1 one of the+, it bein,
sufficient that the ne,li,ence of the person char,ed ith inCur1 is an efficient cause ithout hich the inCur1
ould not have resulted to as ,reat an e9tent, and that such cause is not attributable to the person inCured.
It is no defense to one of the concurrent tortfeasors that the inCur1 ould not have resulted fro+ his
ne,li,ence alone, ithout the ne,li,ence or ron,ful acts of the other concurrent tortfeasors. 3here
several causes producin, an inCur1 are concurrent and each is an efficient cause ithout hich the inCur1
ould not have happened, the inCur1 +a1 be attributed to all or an1 of the causes and recover1 +a1 be had
a,ainst an1 or all of the responsible persons althou,h under the circu+stances of the case, it +a1 appear
that one of the+ as +ore culpable, and that the dut1 oed b1 the+ to the inCured person as not the
sa+e. No actorMs ne,li,ence ceases to be a pro9i+ate cause +erel1 because it does not e9ceed the
ne,li,ence of other actors. Each ron,doer is responsible for the entire result and is liable as thou,h his
acts ere the sole cause of the inCur1.
There is no contribution beteen Coint tortfeasors hose liabilit1 is solidar1 since both of the+ are liable for
the total da+a,e. 3here the concurrent or successive ne,li,ent acts or o+issions of to or +ore persons,
althou,h actin, independentl1, are in co+bination ith the direct and pro9i+ate cause of a sin,le inCur1 to a
third person, it is i+possible to deter+ine in hat proportion each contributed to the inCur1 and either of
the+ is responsible for the hole inCur1. 3here their concurrin, ne,li,ence resulted in inCur1 or da+a,e to
a third part1, the1 beco+e Coint tortfeasors and are solidaril1 liable for the resultin, da+a,e under "rticle
<!*' of the Civil Code.
Thus, ith P"S2DECOFs and the petitionerFs successive ne,li,ent acts, the1 are Coint tortfeasors ho are
solidaril1 liable for the resultin, da+a,e under "rticle <!*' of the Ne Civil Code.'!
"nent respondent "rnai8Fs ne,li,ence in drivin, his car, both the trial court and the C" a,reed that it as
onl1 contributor1, and considered the sa+e in +iti,atin, the aard of da+a,es in his favor as provided
under "rticle <!(*'< of the Ne Civil Code. Contributor1 ne,li,ence is conduct on the part of the inCured
part1, contributin, as a le,al cause to the har+ he has suffered, hich falls belo the standard to hich he
is re4uired to confor+ for his on protection.'. Even the petitioner itself described "rnai8Fs ne,li,ence as
contributor1. In its "nser to the co+plaint filed ith the trial court, the petitioner asserted that Gthe direct
and pro9i+ate cause of the accident as the ,ross ne,li,ence of P"S2DECO personnel hich resulted in
the spilla,e of su,arcane and the apparent failure of the P"S2DECO or6ers to clear and +op up the area
co+pletel1, coupled ith the contributor1 ne,li,ence of "rnai8 in drivin, his car at an unreasonable
speed.G'' Aoever, the petitioner chan,ed its theor1 in the present recourse, and no clai+s that the
pro9i+ate and i++ediate cause of the +ishap in 4uestion as the rec6less i+prudence or ,ross
ne,li,ence of respondent "rnai8.'= Such a chan,e of theor1 cannot be alloed. 3hen a part1 adopts a
certain theor1 in the trial court, he ill not be per+itted to chan,e his theor1 on appeal, for to per+it hi+ to
do so ould not onl1 be unfair to the other part1 but it ould also be offensive to the basic rules of fair pla1,
Custice and due process.')
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the present petition is hereb1 DENIED for lac6 of +erit. The
Decision of the Court of "ppeals in C"%&.R. CV No. '()**, dated "pril <*, <00., is ";;IR-ED. Costs
a,ainst the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, #Chair+an$, "ustria%-artine8, Tin,a, and Chico%Na8ario, DD., concur.
Foot"ot(s
! Penned b1 "ssociate Dustice Elie8er R. De los Santos, ith "ssociate Dustices Ro+eo ". 5raner
#no Presidin, Dustice of the Court of "ppeals$ and Re,alado E. -aa+bon,, concurrin,? )ollo, pp.
.0%'=.
< E9hibit G),G PNCC.
. E9hibit G=,G PNCC.
' E9hibit G*,G PNCC.
= E9hibit G/,G PNCC.
) E9hibit G!0,G PNCC.
( TSN, / -arch !**', pp. !/%<0.
/ !d. at <!%<*.
* TSN, / -arch !**', pp. <*%.*.
!0 E9hibit G<,G PNCC.
!! TSN, !* October !**., p. '.
!< TSN, <. Nove+ber !**., p. !..
!. !d. at ./.
!' TSN, ! -arch !**', pp. (<%((.
!= Records, p. !.
!) Records, pp. .%'.
!( !d. at !0.
!/ Records, pp. !.%!'.
!* !d. at !'.
<0 TSN, !< Dul1 !**', pp. !0%!!.
<! !d. at !'%!=.
<< !d. at =).
<. TSN, !' Dul1 !**', p. <*.
<' !d. at ').
<= )ollo, pp. =/%/'? Penned b1 Dud,e Ra+on O. Santia,o.
<) !d. at /'.
<( C" )ollo, p. /=.
</ )ollo, p. '=.
<* !d. at !=.
.0 See Presidential Decree No. !!!., as a+ended b1 P.D. No. !/*'.
.! Smith *ell Dod&ell Shipping Agency Corporation v. *or"a, +.). #o. ,-.//0, !0 Dune <00<, ./.
SCR" .'!.
.< Philippine *an1 of Commerce v. Court of Appeals, +.). #o. 23454, !' -arch !**(, <)* SCR"
)*=.
.. Smith *ell Dod&ell Shipping Agency Corporation v. *or"a, supra.
.' .( Phil. /0* #!*!/$.
.= People v. De los Santos, +.). #o. ,.,600, <( -arch <00!, .== SCR" '!=.
.) TSN, / -arch !**', pp. .)%.(.
.( TSN, !0 -arch !**', p. !/.
./ )ollo, p. ''.
.* &.R. No. 7%<!=!<, .! "u,ust !*)), !( SCR" !0//, citin, ./ "+. Dur. *'), *'(.
'0 &.R. No. !.00)/, ! October !**/, <*( SCR" .0.
'! "rt. <!*'. The responsibilit1 of to or +ore persons ho are liable for a 4uasi%delict is solidar1.
'< "rt. <!(*. 3hen the plaintiffFs on ne,li,ence as the i++ediate and pro9i+ate cause of his
inCur1, he cannot recover da+a,es. 5ut if his ne,li,ence as onl1 contributor1, the i++ediate and
pro9i+ate cause of the inCur1 bein, the defendantFs lac6 of due care, the plaintiff +a1 recover
da+a,es, but the courts shall +iti,ate the da+a,es to be aarded.
'. 7alenuela v. Court of Appeals, +.) #o. ,,6/5-, ( ;ebruar1 !**), <=. SCR" .0..
'' Records, pp. !<%!..
'= )ollo, p. <<.
') See Drilon v. Court of Appeals, ..) Phil. *'* #!**($.