Cabardo vs. Court of Appeals

A driver whose reckless driving is the proximate cause of another’s injuries is liable for damages under Article 2176 of the Civil Code; minor inconsistencies in a witness’s testimony do not destroy credibility, and technical procedural defects may be overlooked to prevent technicality from prevailing over substantial justice.

Petitioner Fidel C. Cabardo was a helper and pump operator aboard a truck-tanker owned by Consolidated Industrial Gases Incorporated (CIGI) and driven by Jose Peralta. Private respondent Juanito C. Rodil was the driver of a Toyota Corolla involved in the same highway accident. The dispute implicated Letter of Instructions No. 229, which requires an early warning device for stalled vehicles, and Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which obliges a person who causes damage by fault or negligence to pay for the damage done.

On October 26, 1987, Jose Peralta, a driver of Consolidated Industrial Gases Incorporated (CIGI), was driving the company’s truck-tanker bearing Plate No. NBG-925 southbound on the South Luzon Expressway, returning to the CIGI office in Santa Rosa, Laguna. Petitioner Fidel C. Cabardo, a helper and pump operator, was with him. According to Peralta, when the truck-tanker reached Barangay San Francisco, Biñan, Laguna, a Volkswagen car suddenly took the inner lane occupied by his truck, forcing him to swerve to the left; the truck-tanker veered and rolled over the center island of the expressway until it fell on its right side, lying perpendicular to the expressway.

Moments later, private respondent Juanito C. Rodil came along in a Toyota Corolla bearing Plate No. DAU-124, also southbound on the inner lane of the highway, with his wife Leveminda. Heavy rain affected visibility. Rodil claimed that upon seeing the disabled vehicle on the center island, he immediately stepped on his brakes, causing his car to swerve to the left and slide sideways toward the truck-tanker, stopping only after it had crashed into the underside of the truck-tanker. Rodil and his wife were injured. Peralta was unhurt, but Cabardo suffered a fractured left leg. Cabardo and the Rodil spouses were taken to the hospital by passing motorists. A PNCC highway patrol team and investigators from the Biñan Integrated National Police arrived later; only Peralta was there to give a statement. The police blotter entry for the accident recorded that Rodil’s Toyota Corolla swerved to the left upon seeing the side-down truck, lost control of its wheel, and hit the CIGI truck and the person standing thereat, identified as Fidel Cabardo.

On March 1, 1988 and March 22, 1988, Cabardo and Peralta gave their respective statements, on the basis of which the Biñan INP police filed a criminal case for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Serious Physical Injuries against Rodil. On April 12, 1988, the Rodils filed a complaint for damages against CIGI and Peralta in the Regional Trial Court at Santa Cruz, Laguna, docketed as Civil Case No. SC-2559. On November 6, 1989, Cabardo filed a complaint for damages against Rodil in the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, docketed as Civil Case No. 639-M-89. In his complaint, Cabardo claimed that he and Peralta were able to get out of the truck-tanker unhurt after it fell on its right side in the middle portion of the center island; that, as he was about to put up the early warning device, Rodil, driving in a reckless and negligent manner, bumped the truck-tanker and hit him on his left leg, causing him to be thrown off balance and lose consciousness; and that he suffered a fractured left leg and other injuries. Rodil denied having caused Cabardo’s injury, alleged that it was sustained when the truck-tanker driven by Peralta fell on its side, and contended that Cabardo’s action was barred by the pendency of Civil Case No. SC-2559.

On November 21, 1989, the Santa Cruz court rendered judgment finding CIGI and Peralta guilty of negligence, even as it held Rodil guilty of contributory negligence. The Santa Cruz court found that Letter of Instructions No. 229 required the installation of an early warning device in front and rear of a stalled vehicle; that CIGI and Peralta failed to install one; but that Rodil was also at fault because he testified it was raining heavily and he noticed the truck-tanker only about five to ten meters away, and when he applied his brakes his car skidded and smashed into the truck-tanker, showing he was driving fast. Meanwhile, Rodil filed in the Malolos court a Manifestation and Motion for Hearing on affirmative defense, alleging that Cabardo’s action was barred by the pendency of the suit he and his wife had filed in Santa Cruz. On February 8, 1990, the Malolos court treated the motion as a motion to dismiss and denied it, holding that litis pendencia requires another action pending involving the same parties, subject matter, and cause of action; that Cabardo was not a party in the Santa Cruz case; that the cause of action in the instant case was Rodil’s reckless imprudence causing Cabardo’s injuries, while the Santa Cruz case involved Peralta’s simple negligence for failure to install an early warning device; and that the Santa Cruz judgment would not be res judicata.

On January 3, 1991, after hearing on the merits, the Malolos trial court rendered judgment against Rodil. It found Rodil reckless in driving his car, based on his own admission that he was travelling on the left lane at 60 to 70 kilometers per hour despite heavy rain and could hardly see an object at a distance of ten meters; that a careful and prudent driver would have slowed down, put his headlights on, and transferred to the lane for slow-moving vehicles; that the truck-tanker was already stationary inside the center island; and that the accident could have been prevented had Rodil exercised reasonable care. The trial court held that Rodil’s negligence was the proximate cause of Cabardo’s injuries. Rodil’s motion for reconsideration was denied on March 15, 1991. Rodil appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on August 9, 1994 reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that the testimonies of Cabardo and Peralta could not be believed because of inconsistencies. Cabardo’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals on December 8, 1994, leading to the present petition.

• Dismissal of Complaint: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing his complaint against private respondent.
• Inconsistencies in Statements: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in stating that there were apparent inconsistencies in his and Peralta’s statements.
• Categorical Testimony: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in stating that neither he nor Peralta was categorical in their testimonies regarding the incident.
• Cause of Injuries: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in stating that he suffered injuries when the truck-tanker swerved to the center island of the expressway.

• Procedural Deficiency — Motion for Extension: Respondent argued that the motion for extension of time to file the petition for review on certiorari was filed in the name and on behalf of Consolidated Industrial Gases Incorporated (CIGI).
• Non-Compliance with Revised Circular No. 28-91: Respondent argued that the petition did not fully comply with the requirements of Revised Circular No. 28-91 issued on February 8, 1994.
• Failure to State Assignment of Errors: Respondent argued that the petition did not state the assignment of errors made in private respondent’s brief filed in the Court of Appeals, as required under Section 2, Rule 45.
• Question of Fact: Respondent argued that the petition raised only questions of fact, which are not cognizable by the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, and that the case did not constitute an exception.

• Proximate Cause and Dismissal: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Cabardo’s complaint by holding that his injuries were not caused by Rodil’s car.
• Credibility of Cabardo and Peralta: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in discrediting the testimonies of Cabardo and Peralta based on alleged inconsistencies and lack of categorical testimony.
• Cause of Injuries: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in stating that Cabardo suffered his injuries when the truck-tanker swerved to the center island.
• Procedural Deficiencies: Whether the petition should be dismissed for alleged procedural deficiencies, including the motion for extension filed in CIGI’s name, non-compliance with Revised Circular No. 28-91, and failure to state the assignment of errors.
• Question of Fact: Whether the petition raises only questions of fact not cognizable by the Supreme Court under Rule 45.

• Proximate Cause and Dismissal: No. The Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the complaint; Rodil’s negligent driving was the proximate cause of Cabardo’s injuries, and the Regional Trial Court’s judgment was reinstated.
• Credibility of Cabardo and Peralta: No. The inconsistencies were minor and inconsequential; the testimonies dovetailed on essential details, and a witness is not expected to remember an occurrence with perfect recollection down to insignificant and minute details.
• Cause of Injuries: No. The evidence, including the location of Cabardo’s left-knee injury and the police blotter, supported the finding that he was hit by Rodil’s car rather than injured when the truck-tanker overturned.
• Procedural Deficiencies: No. The alleged defects were either not true, merely typographical, or should be overlooked; dismissing the petition would uphold technicality over substantial justice.
• Question of Fact: No. The Court entertained and granted the petition, reviewed the evidence, and reversed the Court of Appeals, thus rejecting the objection that the factual nature of the issues barred relief.

• Proximate Cause and Dismissal: Both the Santa Cruz court and the Malolos court found Rodil negligent. The Santa Cruz court found that he drove fast in heavy rain and failed to stop in time, while the Malolos court found that he travelled on the left lane at 60 to 70 kilometers per hour despite heavy rain and could hardly see an object at ten meters. The truck-tanker was already stationary inside the center island; the police investigator saw the truck-tanker and the car in contact inside the center island and stated that no portion of the truck-tanker protruded the asphalted portion of the expressway. Under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. The accident could have been prevented had Rodil exercised reasonable care; therefore, his negligence was the proximate cause of Cabardo’s injuries, and the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court.
• Credibility of Cabardo and Peralta: The Court of Appeals reversed mainly because of alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of Cabardo and Peralta. The Supreme Court found the inconsistencies minor and inconsequential. The essential details dovetailed: Cabardo was unhurt after the truck-tanker turned turtle and fell on its side; he and Peralta got out of the truck-tanker; Peralta instructed him to put up the early warning device; and he was hurt because he was hit by Rodil’s car. Cabardo’s statement in court that he was hit while checking the pressure gauge could have happened before he could put up the early warning device, and his statement in Exhibit A that he was hit while in the act of putting up the device could have been a mistake of the police investigator who took down his statement. The contradiction between his statement that he was holding the early warning device and Peralta’s uncertainty whether Cabardo followed the instruction was not fatal; what mattered was that Peralta said he had instructed Cabardo to put up the device and that Cabardo was hurt because he was hit by Rodil’s speeding car. Peralta’s statement to the police shortly after the accident, before he had time to invent a story, was reflected in the police blotter and corroborated that Cabardo was hit by a car that crashed against the truck-tanker.
• Cause of Injuries: The Court found it more probable that Cabardo’s injuries were caused by Rodil’s car hitting him. First, as the Court of Appeals itself found, Cabardo was taken to a hospital in Biñan, Laguna together with the Rodils; had he been injured earlier when the truck-tanker turned turtle, he would in all probability have been taken for treatment much earlier. Second, the trial court observed that Cabardo was seated at the right side of the driver; the driver was not injured, while Cabardo sustained a closed, complete fracture of the lateral tibial condyle of the knee. If Cabardo had been injured when the truck-tanker turned turtle and landed on its right side, the injury would not have been on his left knee but on some other part of the body, more especially the right side that would have come in contact with the door. The trial court applied the law of gravity and found Cabardo categorical that he was looking at the gauge while carrying the early warning device when the car hit him. Rodil, in contrast, did not categorically state that his car did not hit Cabardo; he only said that he did not see a person hit by the car. Rodil also admitted that immediately before the accident he was driving on the left lane at 60 to 70 kilometers per hour and could hardly see an object at ten meters because of the heavy rain.
• Procedural Deficiencies: The petition did contain an assignment of errors, which the Court quoted. The motion for extension to file the petition was allegedly made on behalf of CIGI, but this was obviously a mere typographical error in the title; the allegations of the motion showed that it was actually filed on behalf of Cabardo, and the defect should have been pointed out earlier. The failure to state in the certificate of non-forum shopping the undertaking to inform the Court of any petition which might be filed, as required under Revised Circular No. 28-91, may be overlooked because it did not appear that any petition related to the case had ever been filed in any other court. To dismiss the petition on this ground would be to uphold technicality over substantial justice.
• Question of Fact: The Court found the petition meritorious and proceeded to review the evidence, including the testimonies and the police blotter, and reversed the Court of Appeals. The factual nature of the issues did not preclude relief because the Court of Appeals had misappreciated the evidence and the Court corrected its findings.

• Negligence and Proximate Cause under Article 2176 — Under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. The Court applied this provision by holding Rodil liable for Cabardo’s injuries because Rodil’s reckless driving in heavy rain, at 60 to 70 kilometers per hour and without avoiding the stationary truck-tanker, was the proximate cause of the injuries.
• Credibility of Witnesses and Minor Inconsistencies — A witness is not expected to remember an occurrence with perfect recollection down to insignificant and minute details; inconsistencies on minor matters do not destroy credibility where the testimonies dovetail on essential facts. The Court applied this to Cabardo and Peralta, finding their inconsistencies minor and inconsequential and their accounts consistent on the essential fact that Cabardo was hit by Rodil’s car.
• Technical Rules and Substantial Justice — Procedural defects may be overlooked where no related petition has been filed and dismissal would uphold technicality over substantial justice. The Court applied this to the typographical error in the motion for extension and the omission in the certificate of non-forum shopping.

• "There are indeed inconsistencies but these are minor and inconsequential. What is important is that the statements dovetail in essential details with the testimonies given in court: Petitioner claimed that he was unhurt after their vehicle turned turtle and fell on its side; that he and Jose Peralta, who was driving the vehicle, got out of the truck-tanker; that he was asked by Peralta to put up the EWD; and that petitioner was hurt because he was hit by private respondent's car." — This is the ratio on credibility, explaining why the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting the witnesses’ testimonies.
• "a witness is not expected to remember an occurrence with perfect recollection down to insignificant and minute details." — This states the controlling rule on minor inconsistencies and witness credibility.
• "Indeed, it is more probable that petitioner's injuries were caused by private respondent's car hitting him." — This is the Court’s conclusion on proximate cause, resolving the central factual dispute in Cabardo’s favor.
• "On the other hand, to dismiss the petition on this ground would be to uphold technicality over substantial justice." — This states the Court’s approach to the procedural defects raised by respondent.

• Severino Antonio vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100513, June 13, 1997 — cited for the rule that a witness is not expected to remember an occurrence with perfect recollection down to insignificant and minute details.
• People vs. Daen, 244 SCRA 382 (1995) — cited in Severino Antonio for the same principle on witness recollection and minor inaccuracies.
• Santa Ana vs. Narvades, 30 SCRA 454 — cited by the Malolos court in denying Rodil’s motion to dismiss for litis pendencia, requiring another action pending involving the same parties, subject matter, and cause of action.

• Article 2176, Civil Code — Provides that whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. The Court applied it to hold Rodil liable because his negligence was the proximate cause of Cabardo’s injuries.
• Letter of Instructions No. 229 — Requires the installation of an early warning device in front and rear of a stalled vehicle. The Santa Cruz court found CIGI and Peralta negligent for failing to install one, but the Supreme Court also relied on the finding that Rodil was independently negligent.
• Section 2, Rule 45, Rules of Court — Requires the petition to state the assignment of errors made in respondent’s brief in the Court of Appeals. Respondent invoked this provision, but the Court found the petition contained an assignment of errors.
• Revised Circular No. 28-91 — Requires a certificate of non-forum shopping with an undertaking to inform the Court of any petition filed. Respondent invoked this provision, but the Court overlooked the omission because no related petition appeared to have been filed and dismissal would uphold technicality over substantial justice.

Justices Regalado, Melo, Puno, and Martinez concurred.