Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. Nos. 66102-04 August 30, 1990
PHILIPPINE RAIT US LINES, INC., petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORALE INTERME!IATE APPELLATE COURT AN! CASIANO PASCUA, ET AL.,
respondents.
Santiago & Santiago for petitioner.
Federico R. Vinluan for private respondents.

ME!IAL!EA, J.:
This is a petition for revie on certiorari of the decision of the Inter!ediate "ppellate #ourt $no
#ourt of "ppeals% dated &ul' (), *)+, in "#-..R. Nos. #V-/0++0, #V-/0++/ and #V-/0++1 hich
reversed the decision of the #ourt of First Instance $no Re2ional Trial #ourt% of Pan2asinan dated
Dece!ber (1, *)1+3 and its resolution dated Nove!ber (+, *)+, den'in2 the !otion for
reconsideration.
It is an established principle that the factual findin2s of the #ourt of "ppeals are final and !a' not be
revieed b' this #ourt on appeal. 4oever, this principle is sub5ect to certain e6ceptions. One of
these is hen the findin2s of the appellate court are contrar' to those of the trial court $see Sabinosa
v. The 4onorable #ourt of "ppeals, et al., ..R. No. 7-81)+*, &ul' (8, *)+)% in hich case, a re-
e6a!ination of the facts and evidence !a' be underta9en. This is Our tas9 no.
The antecedent facts are as follos:
"bout **:;; o<cloc9 in the !ornin2 on Dece!ber (8, *)//, #atalina Pascua, #aridad Pascua,
"delaida =sto!o, =rlinda Meriales, Mercedes 7oren>o, "le5andro Morales and ?enaida Pare5as
boarded the 5eepne' oned b' spouses Isidro Man2une and .uiller!a #arreon and driven b'
Tran@uilino Manalo at Dau, Mabalacat, Pa!pan2a bound for #ar!en, Rosales, Pan2asinan to
spend #hrist!as at their respective ho!es. "lthou2h the' usuall' ride in buses, the' had to ride in a
5eepne' that da' because the buses ere full. Their contract ith Manalo as for the! to pa'
P(8.;; for the trip. The private respondents< testi!onial evidence on this contractual relationship
as not controverted b' Man2une, #arreon and Manalo, nor b' Filriters .uarant' "ssurance
#orporation, Inc., the insurer of the 5eepne', ith contrar' evidence. Purportedl' ridin2 on the front
seat ith Manalo as Mercedes 7oren>o. On the left rear passen2er seat ere #aridad Pascua,
"le5andro Morales and ?enaida Pare5as. On the ri2ht rear passen2er seat ere #atalina Pascua,
"delaida =sto!o, and =rlinda Meriales. "fter a brief stopover at Moncada, Tarlac for refresh!ent,
the 5eepne' proceeded toards #ar!en, Rosales, Pan2asinan.
Apon reachin2 barrio Sina'oan, San Manuel, Tarlac, the ri2ht rear heel of the 5eepne' as
detached, so it as runnin2 in an unbalanced position. Manalo stepped on the bra9e, as a result of
hich, the 5eepne' hich as then runnin2 on the eastern lane $its ri2ht of a'% !ade a A-turn,
invadin2 and eventuall' stoppin2 on the estern lane of the road in such a !anner that the
5eepne'<s front faced the south $fro! here it ca!e% and its rear faced the north $toards here it
as 2oin2%. The 5eepne' practicall' occupied and bloc9ed the 2reater portion of the estern lane,
hich is the ri2ht of a' of vehicles co!in2 fro! the north, a!on2 hich as Bus No. 10, of
petitioner Philippine Rabbit Bus 7ines, Inc. $Rabbit% driven b' To!as delos Re'es. "l!ost at the ti!e
hen the 5eepne' !ade a sudden A-turn and encroached on the estern lane of the hi2ha' as
clai!ed b' Rabbit and delos Re'es, or after stoppin2 for a couple of !inutes as clai!ed b'
Man2une, #arreon and Manalo, the bus bu!ped fro! behind the ri2ht rear portion of the 5eepne'.
"s a result of the collision, three passen2ers of the 5eepne' $#atalina Pascua, =rlinda Meriales and
"delaida =sto!o% died hile the other 5eepne' passen2ers sustained ph'sical in5uries. Chat could
have been a festive #hrist!as turned out to be tra2ic.
The causes of the death of the three 5eepne' passen2ers ere as follos $p. *;*, Record on
"ppeal%:
The deceased #atalina Pascua suffered the folloin2 in5uries, to it: fracture of the
left parietal and te!poral re2ions of the s9ull3 fracture of the left !andible3 fracture of
the ri2ht hu!enous3 co!pound fracture of the left radious and ull!a !iddle third and
loer third3 fracture of the upper third of the ri2ht tibia and fillnea3 avulsion of the
head, left internal3 and !ultiple abrasions. The cause of her death as shoc9,
secondar' to fracture and !ultiple he!orrha2e. The fractures ere produced as a
result of the hittin2 of the victi! b' a stron2 force. The abrasions could be produced
hen a person falls fro! a !ovin2 vehicles $sic% and rubs parts of her bod' a2ainst a
ce!ent road pave!ent. . . .
=rlinda Mariles $sic% sustained e6ternal lesions such as contusion on the left parietal
re2ion of the s9ull3 he!ato!a on the ri2ht upper lid3 and abrasions $sic% on the left
9nee. 4er internal lesions ere: he!ato!a on the left thora63 !ultiple lacerations of
the left loer lobe of the lun2s3 contusions on the left loer lobe of the lun2s3 and
si!ple fractures of the (nd, ,rd, 8th, 0th, /th, 1th, and +th ribs, left. The forcible
i!pact of the 5eep caused the above in5uries hich resulted in her death. . . .
The cause of death of =rlinda or Florida =sto!o $also called as per autops' of Dr.
Panlasi@ui as due to shoc9 due to internal he!orrha2e, ruptured spleen and
trau!a. . . .
#aridad Pascua suffered ph'sical in5uries as follos $p. *;*, Record on "ppeal%:
. . . lacerated ound on the forehead and occipital re2ion, he!ato!a on the
forehead, !ultiple abrasions on the forear!, ri2ht upper ar!, bac9 and ri2ht le2. . . .
The police investi2ators of Tacpal and police!en of San Manuel, Tarlac, Tarlac, upon arrival at the
scene of the !ishap, prepared a s9etch $co!!on e6hibit DED for private respondents D*)D for Rabbit%
shoin2 the relative positions of the to vehicles as ell as the alle2ed point of i!pact $p. *;;,
Record on "ppeal%:
. . . The point of collision as a ce!ent pave-portion of the 4i2ha', about si6 $/%
!eters ide, ith narro shoulders ith 2rasses be'ond hich are canals on both
sides. The road as strai2ht and points (;; !eters north and south of the point of
collision are visible and unobstructed. Purportedl', the point of i!pact or collision
$=6h. DE-8D, Pascua on the s9etch =6h. DED-Pascua% as on the estern lane of the
hi2ha' about , feet $or one 'ard% fro! the center line as shon b' the bedris $sic%,
dirt and soil $obviousl' fro! the undercarria2e of both vehicles% as ell as paint,
!arron $sic% fro! the Rabbit bus and 2reenish fro! the 5eepne'. The point of i!pact
encircled and !ar9ed ith the letter DFD in =6h. DED-8 Pascua, had a dia!eter of to
!eters, the center of hich as about to !eters fro! the estern ed2e of ce!ent
pave!ent of the roada'. Pictures ta9en b' itness Bis@uera in the course of the
investi2ation shoed the relative positions of the point of i!pact and center line $=6h.
DPD-Pascua% the bac9 of the Rabbit bus $=6h. DPD-*-PascuaD%, the lifeless bod' of
#atalina Pascua $=6h. DP-( PascuaD%, and the da!a2ed front part of the Rabbit bus
$=6h. DP-, PascuaD%. No s9id !ar9s of the Rabbit bus as found in the vicinit' of the
collision, before or after the point of i!pact. On the other hand, there as a s9id
!ar9 about 80 !eters lon2 purportedl' of the 5eepne' fro! the eastern shoulder of
the road south of, and e6tendin2 up to the point of i!pact.
"t the ti!e and in the vicinit' of the accident, there ere no vehicles folloin2 the 5eepne', neither
ere there onco!in2 vehicles e6cept the bus. The eather condition of that da' as fair.
"fter conductin2 the investi2ation, the police filed ith the Municipal #ourt of San Manuel, Tarlac, a
cri!inal co!plaint a2ainst the to drivers for Multiple 4o!icide. "t the preli!inar' investi2ation, a
probable cause as found ith respect to the case of Manalo, thus, his case as elevated to the
#ourt of First Instance. 4oever, findin2 no sufficienc' of evidence as re2ards the case of delos
Re'es, the #ourt dis!issed it. Manalo as convicted and sentenced to suffer i!prison!ent. Not
havin2 appealed, he served his sentence.
#o!plaints for recover' of da!a2es ere then filed before the #ourt of First Instance of
Pan2asinan. In #ivil #ase No. **,/, spouses #asiano Pascua and &uana Valde> sued as heirs of
#atalina Pascua hile #aridad Pascua sued in her behalf. In #ivil #ase No. **,), spouses Manuel
Millares and Fidencia "rcica sued as heirs of =rlinda Meriales. In #ivil #ase No. **8;, spouses
Mariano =sto!o and Dionisia Sar!iento also sued as heirs of "delaida =sto!o.
In all three cases, spouses Man2une and #arreon, Manalo, Rabbit and delos Re'es ere all
i!pleaded as defendants. Plaintiffs anchored their suits a2ainst spouses Man2une and #arreon and
Manalo on their contractual liabilit'. "s a2ainst Rabbit and delos Re'es, plaintiffs based their suits on
their culpabilit' for a @uasi-delict. Filriters .uarant' "ssurance #orporation, Inc. as also i!pleaded
as additional defendant in #ivil #ase No. **,/ onl'.
For the death of #atalina Pascua, plaintiffs in #ivil #ase No. **,/ sou2ht to collect the a22re2ate
a!ount of P1;,;/;.;; in da!a2es, ite!i>ed as follos: P0;;.;; for burial e6penses3 P*(,;;;.;; for
loss of a2es for (8 'ears3 P*;,;;;.;; for e6e!plar' da!a2es3 P*;,;;;.;; for !oral da!a2es3 and
P,,;;;.;; for attorne'<s fees. In the sa!e case, plaintiff #aridad Pascua clai!ed P00;.;; for
!edical e6penses3 P(8;.;; for loss of a2es for to !onths3 P(,;;;.;; for disfi2ure!ent of her
face3 P,,;;;.;; for ph'sical pain and sufferin23 P(,0;;.;; as e6e!plar' da!a2es and P(,;;;.;; for
attorne'<s fees and e6penses of liti2ation.
In #ivil #ase No. **,), plaintiffs de!anded P0;;.;; for burial e6penses3 P/,;;;.;; for the death of
=rlinda, P/,,;;;.;; for loss of inco!e3 P*;,;;;.;; for !oral da!a2es and P,,;;;.;; for attorne'<s
fees or total of P+;,;;;.;;.
In #ivil #ase No. **8;, plaintiffs clai!ed P0;;.;; for burial e6penses3 P/,;;;.;; for the death of
"delaide, P0/,*/;.;; for loss of her inco!e or earnin2 capacit'3 P*;,;;;.;; for !oral da!a2es3
and P,,;;;.;; for attorne'<s fees.
Rabbit filed a cross-clai! in the a!ount of P*0,;;;.;; for attorne'<s fees and e6penses of liti2ation.
On the other hand, spouses Man2une and #arreon filed a cross-clai! in the a!ount of P/,*/+.;;
for the repair of the 5eepne' and P,,;;;.;; for its non-use durin2 the period of repairs.
On Dece!ber (1, *)1+, the trial court rendered its decision findin2 Manalo ne2li2ent, the dispositive
portion of hich reads $pp. **,-**8, Record on "ppeal%:
PR=MIS=S #ONSID=R=D, this #ourt is of the opinion and so holds:
*% That defendants Isidro Man2une, .uiller!a #arreon and Tran@uilino Manalo thru
their ne2li2ence, breached contract of carria2e ith their passen2ers the plaintiffs<
andGor their heirs, and this #ourt renders 5ud2!ent orderin2 said defendants, 5ointl'
and severall', to pa' the plaintiffs H
a% In #ivil #ase No. **,/, for the death of #atalina Pascua, to pa' her heirs the
a!ounts of P*(,;;;.;; for inde!nit' for loss of her life3 P8*,1/;.;; for loss of
earnin2s3 P,(8.8; for actual e6penses and P(,;;;.;; for !oral da!a2es3
b% In the sa!e #ivil #ase No.**,/ for the in5uries of #aridad Pascua, to pa' her the
a!ounts of P(8;.;; for loss of a2es, P,(+.(; for actual e6penses and P0;;.;; for
!oral da!a2es3
c% In #ivil #ase No.**,) for the death of =rlinda Meriales, to pa' her heirs $the
plaintiffs% the a!ount of P*(,;;;.;; H for inde!nit' for loss of her life3 P/((.;; for
actual e6penses, P/;,8+;.;; for loss of a2es or inco!e and P(,;;;.;; for !oral
da!a2es3
d% In #ivil #ase No. **8;, for the death of =rlinda $also called Florida or "delaida
=sto!o%, to pa' her heirs $the plaintiff the a!ount of P*(,;;;.;; for inde!nit' for the
loss of her life3 P0+;.;; for actual e6penses3 P0,,*/;.;; for loss of a2es or inco!e
and P(,;;;.;; for !oral da!a2es.
(% The defendant Filriters .uarant' Insurance #o., havin2 contracted to ensure and
anser for the obli2ations of defendants Man2une and #arreon for da!a2es due
their passen2ers, this #ourt renders 5ud2!ent a2ainst the said defendants Filriters
.uarant' Insurance #o., 5ointl' and severall' ith said defendants $Man2une and
#arreon% to pa' the plaintiffs the a!ount herein above ad5udicated in their favor in
#ivil #ase No. **,/ onl'. "ll the a!ounts aarded said plaintiff, as set forth in
para2raph one $*% hereinabove3
,% On the cross clai! of Phil. Rabbit Bus 7ines, Inc. orderin2 the defendant, Isidro
Man2une, .uiller!a #arreon and Tran@uilino Manalo, to pa' 5ointl' and severall',
cross-clai!ant Phil. Rabbit Bus 7ines, Inc., the a!ounts of P(*/.(1 as actual
da!a2es to its Bus No. 10, and P(,*1,./; for loss of its earnin2.
"ll of the above a!ount, shall bear le2al interest fro! the filin2 of the co!plaints.
#osts are ad5ud2ed a2ainst defendants Man2une, #arreon and Manalo and Filriters
.uarant'.
SO ORD=R=D
On appeal, the Inter!ediate "ppellate #ourt reversed the above-@uoted decision b' findin2 delos
Re'es ne2li2ent, the dispositive portion of hich reads $pp. 00-01, Rollo%:
C4=R=FOR=, PR=MIS=S #ONSID=R=D, the loer court<s decision is hereb'
R=V=RS=D as to ite! No. , of the decision hich reads:
,% On the cross clai! of Philippine Rabbit Bus 7ines, Inc. orderin2 the defendants
Isidro Man2une, .uiller!a #arreon and Tran@uilino Manalo, to pa' 5ointl' and
severall', the a!ounts of P(*/.(1 as actual da!a2es to its Bus No. 10, and
P(,*1,./; for loss of its earnin2s.
and another 5ud2!ent is hereb' rendered in favor of plaintiffs-appellants #asiana
Pascua, &uan Valde> and #aridad Pascua, orderin2 the Philippine Rabbit Bus 7ines,
Inc. and its driver To!as delos Re'es to pa' the for!er 5ointl' and severall'
da!a2es in a!ounts aarded as follos:
For the death of #atalina Pascua, the parents andGor heirs are aarded
#ivil #ase No. **,/ H
a% Inde!nit' for the loss of life H P*(,;;;.;;
b% 7oss of Salaries or earnin2 capacit' H *8,;;;.;;
c% "ctual da!a2es $burial e6penses% H +;;.;;
d% For !oral da!a2es H *;,;;;.;;
e% =6e!plar' da!a2es H ,,;;;.;;
f% For attorne'<s fees H ,,;;;.;;
HHHHH
Total H P,+,(;;.;; $sic%
For the ph'sical in5uries suffered b' #aridad Pascua:
#ivil #ase No. **,/
a% "ctual da!a2es $hospitali>ation e6penses% H P00;.;;
b% Moral da!a2es $disfi2ure!ent of the
face and ph'sical sufferin2 H +,;;;.;;
c% =6e!plar' da!a2es H (,;;;.;;
HHHHH
Total H P*;,00;.;;
For the death of =rlinda "rce2a Meriales. the parents andGor heirs:
#ivil #ase No. **,)
a% Inde!nit' for loss of life H P*(,;;;.;;
b% 7oss of Salar' or =arnin2 #apacit' H (;,;;;.;;
c% "ctual da!a2es $burial e6penses% H 0;;.;;
d% Moral da!a2es H *0,;;;.;;
e% =6e!plar' da!a2es H *0,;;;.;;
f% "ttorne'<s fees H ,,;;;.;;
HHHHH
Total H P/0,0;;.;;
For the death of Florida Sar!iento =sto!o:
#ivil #ase No. **8;
a% Inde!nit' for loss of life H P*(,;;;.;;
b% 7oss of Salar' or =arnin2 capacit' H (;,;;;.;;
c% "ctual da!a2es $burial e6penses% H 0;;.;;
d% Moral da!a2es H ,,;;;.;;
e% =6e!plar' da!a2es H ,,;;;.;;
f% "ttorne'<s fees H ,,;;;.;;
HHHHH
Total H P8*,0;;.;;
Cith costs a2ainst the Philippine Rabbit Bus 7ines, Inc.
SO ORD=R=D.
The !otion for reconsideration as denied. 4ence, the present petition.
The issue is ho is liable for the death and ph'sical in5uries suffered b' the passen2ers of the
5eepne'I
The trial court, in declarin2 that Manalo as ne2li2ent, considered the folloin2 $p. *;/, Record on
"ppeal%:
$*% That the unrebutted testi!on' of his passen2er plaintiff #aridad Pascua that a
lon2 a's $sic% before reachin2 the point of collision, the Man2une 5eepne' as
Drunnin2 fastD that his passen2ers cautioned driver Manalo to slo don but did not
heed the arnin2: that the ri2ht rear heel as detached causin2 the 5eepne' to run
to the eastern shoulder of the road then bac9 to the concrete pave!ent3 that driver
Manalo applied the bra9es after hich the 5eepne' !ade a A-turn $half-turn% in such
a !anner that it inverted its direction !a9in2 it face South instead of north3 that the
5eepne' stopped on the estern lane of the road on the ri2ht of a' of the onco!in2
Phil. Rabbit Bus here it as bu!ped b' the latter3
$(% The li9eise unrebutted testi!on' of Police Investi2ator Tacpal of the San Manuel
$Tarlac% Police ho, upon respondin2 to the reported collission, found the real
evidence thereat indicate in his s9etch $=6h. E, Pascua %, the trac9s of the 5eepne' of
defendant Man2une and #arreon runnin2 on the =astern shoulder $outside the
concrete paved road% until it returned to the concrete road at a sharp an2le, crossin2
the =astern lane and the $i!a2inar'% center line and encroachin2 full' into the
estern lane here the collision too9 place as evidenced b' the point of i!pact3
$,% The observation of itness Police #orporal #acalda also of the San Manuel
Police that the path of the 5eepne' the' found on the road and indicated in the s9etch
$=6h. E-Pascua% as shon b' s9id !ar9s hich he described as Dscratches on the
road caused b' the iron of the 5eep, after its heel as re!oved3D
$8% 4is conviction for the cri!e of Multiple 4o!icide and Multiple Serious Ph'sical
In5uries ith Da!a2e to Propert' thru Rec9less I!prudence b' the #ourt of First
Instance of Tarlac $=6h. (8-Rabbit% upon the cri!inal Infor!ation b' the Provincial
Fiscal of Tarlac $=6h. (,-Rabbit%, as a result of the collision, and his co!!it!ent to
prison and service of his sentence $=6h. (0-Rabbit% upon the finalit' of the decision
and his failure to appeal therefro!3 and
$0% The application of the doctrine of res-ipsa loquitar $sic% attestin2 to the
circu!stance that the collision occured $sic% on the ri2ht of a' of the Phil. Rabbit
Bus.
The respondent court had a contrar' opinion. "ppl'in2 pri!aril' $*% the doctrine of last clear chance,
$(% the presu!ption that drivers ho bu!p the rear of another vehicle 2uilt' and the cause of the
accident unless contradicted b' other evidence, and $,% the substantial factor test. concluded that
delos Re'es as ne2li2ent.
The !isappreciation of the facts and evidence and the !isapplication of the las b' the respondent
court arrant a reversal of its @uestioned decision and resolution.
Ce reiterate that DJtKhe principle about Dthe last clearD chance, ould call for application in a suit
beteen the oners and drivers of the to collidin2 vehicles. It does not arise here a passen2er
de!ands responsibilit' fro! the carrier to enforce its contractual obli2ations. For it ould be
ine@uitable to e6e!pt the ne2li2ent driver of the 5eepne' and its oners on the 2round that the other
driver as li9eise 2uilt' of ne2li2ence.D This as Our rulin2 in Anuran, et al. v. Buo et al., ..R.
Nos. 7-(*,0, and 7-(*,08, Ma' (;, *)//, *1 S#R" ((8.
1
Thus, the respondent court erred in
appl'in2 said doctrine.
On the presu!ption that drivers ho bu!p the rear of another vehicle 2uilt' and the cause of the
accident, unless contradicted b' other evidence, the respondent court said $p. 8), Rollo%:
. . . the 5eepne' had alread' e6ecuted a co!plete turnabout and at the ti!e of i!pact
as alread' facin2 the estern side of the road. Thus the 5eepne' assu!ed a ne
frontal position vis a vis, the bus, and the bus assu!ed a ne role of defensive
drivin2. The spirit behind the presu!ption of 2uilt on one ho bu!ps the rear end of
another vehicle is for the driver folloin2 a vehicle to be at all ti!es prepared of a
pendin2 accident should the driver in front suddenl' co!e to a full stop, or chan2e its
course either throu2h chan2e of !ind of the front driver, !echanical trouble, or to
avoid an accident. The rear vehicle is 2iven the responsibilit' of avoidin2 a collision
ith the front vehicle for it is the rear vehicle ho has full control of the situation as it
is in a position to observe the vehicle in front of it.
The above discussion ould have been correct ere it not for the undisputed fact that the A-turn
!ade b' the 5eepne' as abrupt $=6hibit DE,D Pascua%. The 5eepne', hich as then travelin2 on the
eastern shoulder, !a9in2 a strai2ht, s9id !ar9 of appro6i!atel' ,0 !eters, crossed the eastern lane
at a sharp an2le, !a9in2 a s9id !ar9 of appro6i!atel' *0 !eters fro! the eastern shoulder to the
point of i!pact $=6hibit DED Pascua%. 4ence, delos Re'es could not have anticipated the sudden A-
turn e6ecuted b' Manalo. The respondent court did not reali>e that the presu!ption as rebutted b'
this piece of evidence.
Cith re2ard to the substantial factor test, it as the opinion of the respondent court that $p. 0(,
Rollo%:
. . . It is the rule under the substantial factor test that if the actor<s conduct is a
substantial factor in brin2in2 about har! to another, the fact that the actor neither
foresa nor should have foreseen the e6tent of the har! or the !anner in hich it
occurred does not prevent hi! fro! bein2 liable $Restate!ent, Torts, (d%. 4ere, Ce
find defendant bus runnin2 at a fast speed hen the accident occurred and did not
even !a9e the sli2htest effort to avoid the accident, . . . . The bus driver<s conduct is
thus a substantial factor in brin2in2 about har! to the passen2ers of the 5eepne', not
onl' because he as drivin2 fast and did not even atte!pt to avoid the !ishap but
also because it as the bus hich as the ph'sical force hich brou2ht about the
in5ur' and death to the passen2ers of the 5eepne'.
The speed of the bus as calculated b' respondent court as follos $pp. 08-00, Rollo%:
"ccordin2 to the record of the case, the bus departed fro! 7aoa2, Ilocos Norte, at
8:;; o<cloc9 ".M. and the accident too9 place at appro6i!atel' around *(:,; P.M.,
after travellin2 rou2hl' for + hours and ,; !inutes. Deduct fro! this the actual
stopover ti!e of to 4ours $co!puted fro! the testi!on' of the driver that he !ade
three 8;-!inute stop-overs%, Ce ill have an actual travellin2 ti!e of / hours and ,;
!inutes.
Ander the circu!stances, Ce calculate that the 7aoa2-Tarlac route $,/0 9!s.%
drivin2 at an avera2e of 0/ 9!. per hour ould ta9e / hours and ,; !inutes.
Therefore, the avera2e speed of the bus, 2ive and ta9e *; !inutes, fro! the point of
i!pact on the hi2ha' ith e6cellent visibilit' factor ould be +; to ); 9!s. per hour,
as this is the place here buses ould !a9e up for lost ti!e in traversin2 bus' cit'
streets.
Still, Ce are not convinced. It cannot be said that the bus as travellin2 at a fast speed hen the
accident occurred because the speed of +; to ); 9ilo!eters per hour, assu!in2 such calculation to
be correct, is 'et ithin the speed li!it alloed in hi2ha's. Ce cannot even fault delos Re'es for
not havin2 avoided the collision. "s aforestated, the 5eepne' left a s9id !ar9 of about 80 !eters,
!easured fro! the ti!e its ri2ht rear heel as detached up to the point of collision. Delos Re'es
!ust have noticed the perilous condition of the 5eepne' fro! the ti!e its ri2ht rear heel as
detached or so!e ); !eters aa', considerin2 that the road as strai2ht and points (;; !eters
north and south of the point of collision, visible and unobstructed. Delos Re'es ad!itted that he as
runnin2 !ore or less 0; 9ilo!eters per hour at the ti!e of the accident. Asin2 this speed, delos
Re'es covered the distance of 80 !eters in ,.(8 seconds. If Ce adopt the speed of +; 9ilo!eters
per hour, delos Re'es ould have covered that distance in onl' (.;(0 seconds. Veril', he had little
ti!e to react to the situation. To re@uire delos Re'es to avoid the collision is to as9 too !uch fro!
hi!. "side fro! the ti!e ele!ent involved, there ere no options available to hi!. "s the trial court
re!ar9ed $pp. *;1-*;+, Record on "ppeal%:
. . . The' $plaintiffs% tried to i!press this #ourt that defendant de los Re'es, could
have ta9en either of to options: $*% to serve to its ri2ht $estern shoulder% or $(% to
serve to its left $eastern lane%, and thus steer clear of the Man2une 5eepne'. This
#ourt does not so believe, considerin2 the e6istin2 e6i2encies of space and ti!e.
"s to the first option, Phil. Rabbit<s evidence is convincin2 and unrebutted that the
Cestern shoulder of the road as narro and had tall 2rasses hich ould indicate
that it as not passable. =ven plaintiffs on evidence, the pictures $=6hs. P and P-(,
Pascua% are !ute confir!ation of such fact. Indeed, it can be noticed in the picture
$=6h. P-(, Pascua% after the Rabbit bus ca!e to a full stop, it as tilted to ri2ht front
side, its front heels restin2 !ost probabl' on a canal on a !uch loer elevation that
of the shoulder or paved road. It too shos that all of the heels of the Rabbit bus
ere clear of the roada' e6cept the outer left rear heel. These observation
appearin2 in said picture $=6h P-(, Pascua% clearl' shos coupled ith the findin2
the Rabbit bus ca!e to a full stop onl' five !eters fro! the point of i!pact $see
s9etch, =6h. E-Pascua% clearl' sho that driver de los Re'es veered his Rabbit bus
to the ri2ht atte!pt to avoid hittin2 the Man2une<s 5eepne'. That it as not successful
in full' clearin2 the Man2une 5eepne' as its $Rabbit<s% left front hit said 5eepne' $see
picture =6h. *;-"-Rabbit% !ust have been due to li!itations of space and ti!e.
Plaintiffs alternativel' clai! that defendant delos Re'es of the Rabbit bus could also
have served to its left $eastern lane% to avoid bu!pin2 the Man2une 5eepne' hich
as then on the estern lane. Such a clai! is pre!ised on the h'pothesis $sic% that
the eastern lane as then e!pt'. This clai! ould appear to be 2ood cop' of it ere
based alone on the s9etch !ade after the collision. Nonetheless, it loses force it one
ere to consider the ti!e ele!ent involved, for !o!ents before that, the Man2une
5eepne' as crossin2 that ver' eastern lane at a sharp an2le. Ander such a situation
then, for driver delos Re'es to serve to the eastern lane, he ould run the 2reater
ris9 of runnin2 s!ac9 in the Man2une 5eepne' either head on or broadside.
"fter a !inute scrutin' of the factual !atters and dul' proven evidence, Ce find that the pro6i!ate
cause of the accident as the ne2li2ence of Manalo and spouses Man2une and #arreon. The' all
failed to e6ercise the precautions that are needed precisel' pro hac vice.
In culpa contractual, the !o!ent a passen2er dies or is in5ured, the carrier is presu!ed to have
been at fault or to have acted ne2li2entl', and this disputable presu!ption !a' onl' be overco!e b'
evidence that he had observed e6tra-ordinar' dili2ence as prescribed in "rticles *1,,, *100 and
*10/ of the Ne #ivil #ode
2
or that the death or in5ur' of the passen2er as due to a fortuitous event
3

$7asa! v. S!ith, &r., 80 Phil. /01%.
The ne2li2ence of Manalo as proven durin2 the trial b' the unrebutted testi!onies of #aridad
Pascua, Police Investi2ator Tacpal, Police #orporal #acalda, his $Manalo<s% conviction for the cri!e
of Multiple 4o!icide and Multiple Serious In5uries ith Da!a2e to Propert' thru Rec9less
I!prudence, and the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur supra. The ne2li2ence of
spouses Man2une and #arreon as li9eise proven durin2 the trial $p. **;, Record on "ppeal%:
To escape liabilit', defendants Man2une and #arreon offered to sho thru their
itness Natalio Navarro, an alle2ed !echanic, that he periodicall' chec9s and
!aintains the 5eepne' of said defendants, the last on Dec. (,, the da' before the
collision, hich included the ti2htenin2 of the bolts. This notithstandin2 the ri2ht
rear heel of the vehicle as detached hile in transit. "s to the cause thereof no
evidence as offered. Said defendant did not even atte!pt to e6plain, !uch less
establish, it to be one caused b' a caso fortuito. . . .
In an' event, DJiKn an action for da!a2es a2ainst the carrier for his failure to safel' carr' his
passen2er to his destination, an accident caused either b' defects in the auto!obile or
throu2h the ne2li2ence of its driver, is not a caso fortuito hich ould avoid the carriers
liabilit' for da!a2es $Son v. #ebu "utobus #o!pan', )8 Phil. +)( citin2 7asa!, et al. v.
S!ith, &r., 80 Phil. /013 Necesito, etc. v. Paras, et al., *;8 Phil. 10%.
The trial court as therefore ri2ht in findin2 that Manalo and spouses Man2une and #arreon ere
ne2li2ent. 4oever, its rulin2 that spouses Man2une and #arreon are 5ointl' and severall' liable ith
Manalo is erroneous The driver cannot be held 5ointl' and severall' liable ith the carrier in case of
breach of the contract of carria2e. The rationale behind this is readil' discernible. Firstl', the contract
of carria2e is beteen the carrier and the passen2er, and in the event of contractual liabilit', the
carrier is e6clusivel' responsible therefore to the passen2er, even if such breach be due to the
ne2li2ence of his driver $see Viluan v. The #ourt of "ppeals, et al., ..R. Nos. 7-(*811-+*, "pril (),
*)//, */ S#R" 18(%. In other ords, the carrier can neither shift his liabilit' on the contract to his
driver nor share it ith hi!, for his driver<s ne2li2ence is his.
4
Secondl', if Ce !a9e the driver 5ointl'
and severall' liable ith the carrier, that ould !a9e the carrier<s liabilit' personal instead of !erel'
vicarious and conse@uentl', entitled to recover onl' the share hich corresponds to the driver,
"

contradictor' to the e6plicit provision of "rticle (*+* of the Ne #ivil #ode.
6
Ce affir! the a!ount of da!a2es ad5ud2ed b' the trial court, e6cept ith respect to the inde!nit'
for loss of life. Ander "rticle *1/8 in relation to "rticle ((;/ of the Ne #ivil #ode, the a!ount of
da!a2es for the death of a passen2er is at least three thousand pesos $P,,;;;.;;%. The prevailin2
5urisprudence has increased the a!ount of P,,;;;.;; to P,;,;;;.;; $see 4eirs of "!paro delos
Santos, et al. v. 4onorable #ourt of "ppeals, et al., ..R. No. 0**/0, &une (*, *)); citin2 De 7i!a v.
7a2una Ta'abas #o., ..R. Nos. 7-,0/)1-)), "pril *0, *)++, */; S#R" 1;%.
"##ORDIN.7L, the petition is hereb' .R"NT=D. The decision of the Inter!ediate "ppellate #ourt
dated &ul' (), *)+, and its resolution dated Nove!ber (+, *)+, are S=T "SID=. The decision of the
#ourt of First Instance dated Dece!ber (1, *)1+ is R=INST"T=D MODIFI#"TION that onl' Isidro
Man2une, .uiller!a #arreon and Filriters .uarant' "ssurance #orporation, Inc. are liable to the
victi!s or their heirs and that the a!ount of inde!nit' for loss of life is increased to thirt' thousand
pesos $P,;,;;;.;;%.
SO ORD=R=D.
Narvasa !hair"an#, !ru$, %anca&co and %rio-Aquino ''., concur.

#oot$ot%s
* In this case, an i!properl' par9ed passen2er 5eepne' as bu!ped fro! behind b'
a speedin2 truc9 ith such violence that three of its passen2ers died hereas to
other passen2ers suffered in5uries. The representatives of the dead and of the
in5ured passen2ers filed suits to recover da!a2es a2ainst the driver and the oners
of the truc9 and also a2ainst the driver and the oners of the 5eepne'. The trial court
rendered 5ud2!ent absolvin2 the driver and the oners of the 5eepne' but re@uired
the driver and the oners of the truc9 to co!pensate the victi!s. The Plaintiffs
appealed insistin2 that the driver and the oners of the 5eepne' should also be !ade
liable. The appellate court, rel'in2 on the doctrine of last clear chance, affir!ed the
trial court<s decision. The plaintiffs then filed a petition for revie on certiorari before
this #ourt. Ce !odified the @uestioned decision b' !a9in2 all the defendants
solidarit' liable.
( "rticles *1,,, *100 and *10/ of the Ne #ivil #ode, respectivel' provides:
"RT. *1,,. #o!!on carriers, fro! the nature of their business and for reasons of
public polic', are bound to observe e6traordinar' dili2ence in the vi2ilance over the
2oods and for the safet' of the passen2ers transported b' the!, accordin2 to all the
circu!stances of each case.
Such e6traordinar' dili2ence in the vi2ilance over the 2oods is further e6pressed in
articles *1,8, *1,0, and *18/. Nos. 0, /, and 1, hile the e6traordinar' dili2ence for
the safet' of the passen2ers is further set forth in articles *100 and *10/.
"RT. *100. " co!!on carrier is bound to carr' the passen2ers safel' as far as
hu!an care and foresi2ht can provide, usin2 the ut!ost dili2ence of ver' cautious
persons, ith a due re2ard for all the circu!stances.
"RT. *10/. In case of death of or in5uries to passen2ers, co!!on carriers are
presu!ed to have been at fault or to have acted ne2li2entl', unless the' prove that
the' observed e6traordinar' dili2ence as prescribed in articles *1,, and *100.
, "rticle **18 of the Ne #ivil #ode provides:
"RT. **18. =6cept in cases e6pressl' specified b' the la, or hen it is otherise
declared b' stipulation, or hen the nature of the obli2ation re@uires the assu!ption
of ris9, no person shall be responsible for those events hich could not be foreseen,
or hich, thou2h foreseen, ere inevitable.
8 "rticle *10) of the Ne #ivil #ode provides:
"RT. *10). #o!!on carriers are liable for the death of or in5uries to passen2ers
throu2h the ne2li2ence or ilful acts of the for!er<s e!plo'ees, althou2h such
e!plo'ees !a' have acted be'ond the scope of their authorit' or in violation of the
orders of the co!!on carriers.
This liabilit' of the co!!on carriers does not cease upon proof that the' e6ercised
all the dili2ence of a 2ood father of a fa!il' in the selection and supervision of their
e!plo'ees.
0 "rticle *(*1 of the Ne #ivil #ode provides:
"RT. *(*1. Pa'!ent !ade b' one of the solidar' debtors e6tin2uishes the obli2ation.
If to or !ore solidar' debtors offer to pa', the creditor !a' choose hich offer to
accept.
4e ho !ade the pa'!ent !a' clai! fro! his codebtors onl' the share hich
corresponds to each, ith the interest for the pa'!ent alread' !ade. If the pa'!ent
is !ade before the debt is due, no interest for the intervenin2 period !a' de
de!anded.
Chen one of the solidar' debtors cannot, because of his insolvenc', rei!burse his
share to the debtor pa'in2 the obli2ation, such share shall be borne b' all his co-
debtors, in proportion to the debt of each.
/ "rticle (*+* of the Ne #ivil #ode provides:
"RT. (*+*. Choever pa's for the da!a2e caused b' his dependents or e!plo'ees
!a' recover fro! the latter hat he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the clai!.