Cacho vs. Manahan

In a petition for review under Rule 45 where the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory, the Supreme Court may review the factual issues to determine which findings are supported by evidence; common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence not only for the safety of passengers but also for the benefit of other road users, and employers are presumed negligent under Article 2180 of the Civil Code for the torts committed by their employees unless they prove observance of the diligence of a good father of a family in selection and supervision.

Bismark Cacho was driving his Nissan Sentra along the national highway at Pogo, Alaminos, Pangasinan, near the Embarcadero Bridge at approximately 5:00 A.M. on June 30, 1999, when it collided with a Dagupan Bus driven by Gerardo Manahan. The collision resulted in Cacho's instant death, the total wreckage of his vehicle, and multiple injuries to his passengers. Prior to the accident, Renato de Vera, doing business as R.M. De Vera Construction, had placed boulders on the shoulder of the road near the bridge as part of construction work contracted by the local government.

• On June 30, 1999, at approximately 5:00 A.M., Bismark Cacho was driving a Nissan Sentra with Plate No. UAM 778 from Alaminos, Pangasinan to Bani, Pangasinan.
• At Pogo, Alaminos, near the Embarcadero Bridge, Cacho's vehicle collided with a Dagupan Bus with Plate No. AVD 548 driven by Gerardo Manahan and owned by Dagupan Bus Co., Inc.
• The Nissan Sentra had already crossed the bridge when it collided with the bus, which was just about to enter the bridge from the opposite direction.
• The collision resulted in Cacho's instant death, total wreckage of the Nissan Sentra, heavy damage to the front of the bus, and multiple injuries to three passengers inside Cacho's car.
• Renato de Vera, doing business as R.M. De Vera Construction, had placed boulders on the shoulder of the road near the bridge as part of construction work on the Embarcadero Bridge contracted by the local government.
• The petitioners alleged that the bus swerved to the left lane to avoid the boulders, causing the collision.
• The defendants claimed that the bus was on full stop waiting for Cacho's car to cross, and that Cacho was driving fast and swerved to the left because of boulders on his lane, causing him to bump the stationary bus.
• Alvin Camba, a passenger of the bus, testified that the bus was travelling at 80-100 kilometers per hour and suddenly swerved to the left before the impact.
• Photographs of the accident scene showed the bus's front wheels turned to the left and encroaching on the opposite lane, with the Nissan Sentra resting perpendicular to the left side of the bus.
• Manahan applied with Dagupan Bus in April 1999 as a former truck driver with no prior bus driving experience.
• Manahan's driving examination on May 10, 1999 noted his "slow reaction in stopping," and his written examination showed he could not recognize traffic signs indicating a narrow road.
• Manahan completed a seven-day apprenticeship on June 7, 1999, and was cleared for duty on June 21, 1999, with his records indicating he was not fit to drive air-conditioned buses or at night.
• The accident occurred at 5:20 A.M., when visibility conditions were similar to night driving.

• The bus driver, Gerardo Manahan, was negligent for driving at a high speed of 80-100 km/h while approaching a narrow bridge, swerving to the left lane, and occupying the lane of Cacho's vehicle.
• Dagupan Bus Co., Inc. failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of Manahan, making it solidarily liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
• Renato de Vera was negligent for placing boulders on the shoulder of the road, which obstructed the highway and posed danger to passing vehicles.
• The doctrine of "last clear chance" applied because Manahan had the opportunity to avoid the collision given the bus's higher position and visibility.
• The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied because the position of the vehicles after the collision indicated that the bus was moving and not stationary as claimed by the defendants.

• Gerardo Manahan and Dagupan Bus claimed that the bus was on full stop at the approach of the bridge waiting for Cacho's car to cross, and that Cacho was the one driving fast who bumped the stationary bus.
• They argued that Cacho had to swerve to the left because of boulders on his lane, causing the collision.
• They filed cross-claims against De Vera, arguing that the proximate cause of the accident was De Vera Construction's negligence in leaving boulders on the highway.
• De Vera maintained that he ensured road safety by piling boulders in a safe place without encroaching on the road, and presented testimony from the municipal engineer confirming compliance with safety measures.
• De Vera also blamed Cacho for driving recklessly and causing the collision.

• Procedural:
  • Whether the Supreme Court could review factual issues in a petition for review under Rule 45 despite the general rule limiting such petitions to questions of law, given that the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court had contradictory findings regarding the proximate cause of the vehicular accident and the negligence of the parties.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether Gerardo Manahan was negligent in driving the Dagupan Bus at the time of the collision, considering the speed, road conditions, and traffic regulations.
  • Whether Dagupan Bus Co., Inc. exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of Manahan to overcome the presumption of negligence under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
  • Whether Renato de Vera was negligent in placing boulders near the highway and whether such negligence contributed to the accident.
  • Whether the doctrine of last clear chance was applicable to hold Manahan liable for the collision.

• Procedural:
  • The Supreme Court held that while Rule 45 petitions are generally limited to questions of law, the Court may review factual issues when the findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory.
  • The Court found that the CA and RTC had different positions on who was negligent, necessitating a review of the evidence to determine which findings were correct.
  • The Court accorded greater weight to the RTC's factual findings, particularly regarding the credibility of witnesses, as the trial judge had the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand.
• Substantive:
  • The Court found Manahan negligent for driving at 80-100 km/h while approaching a narrow bridge at sunrise when visibility was compromised, violating Section 35 of Republic Act No. 4136 (Land Transportation Code) which requires driving at a careful and prudent speed not greater than is reasonable given the width of the highway and conditions, and requires the ability to stop within the assured clear distance ahead.
  • The Court held that Manahan was presumed negligent under Article 2185 of the Civil Code for violating traffic regulations at the time of the mishap.
  • The Court ruled that Dagupan Bus failed to overcome the presumption of negligence under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, as it hired Manahan despite his lack of bus driving experience, ignored examiner's notes regarding his slow reaction in stopping and inability to recognize narrow road signs, and allowed him to drive at a time when records showed he was not fit for night driving (5:20 A.M. visibility conditions being similar to night).
  • The Court applied the test for negligence from Picart v. Smith, finding that a prudent man in Manahan's position would have foreseen the harmful effect of driving fast on a narrow highway approaching a narrow bridge.
  • The Court held that common carriers must observe extraordinary diligence not only for passengers but also for the benefit of pedestrians and other vehicles on the road.
  • The Court reinstated the RTC's award of damages but modified it to include interest at six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the RTC decision (January 26, 2004) until fully paid, consistent with the rule that interest in quasi-delict cases runs from the date of judgment when damages are deemed reasonably ascertained.

• Picart v. Smith Test for Negligence — Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing conduct or guarding against its consequences. The Court applied this test to determine that Manahan was negligent in driving fast on a narrow highway approaching a narrow bridge.
• Presumption of Negligence under Article 2185 — Unless there is proof to the contrary, a person driving a motor vehicle is presumed negligent if at the time of the mishap he was violating any traffic regulation. The Court applied this presumption because Manahan violated Section 35 of R.A. No. 4136 regarding speed limits and prudent driving.
• Employer's Solidary Liability under Article 2180 — The employer of a negligent employee is liable for the damages caused by the latter, with a presumption that the employer was negligent in the selection or supervision of the employee. This presumption can only be rebutted by clear proof that the employer exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family. The Court found Dagupan Bus failed to rebut this presumption.
• Extraordinary Diligence of Common Carriers — Under Article 1733 of the Civil Code, common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them. The Court extended this duty to benefit pedestrians and other vehicles on the road, not just passengers.
• Exception to the Rule on Questions of Law in Rule 45 — While Rule 45 petitions generally raise only questions of law, the Supreme Court may review factual issues when the findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory.

• "The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence."
• "Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the suggestion born of this prevision, is always necessary before negligence can be held to exist. Stated in these terms, the proper criterion for determining the existence of negligence in a given case is this: Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing conduct or guarding against its consequences."
• "When an employee causes damage due to his own negligence while performing his own duties, the juris tantum presumption arises that his employer is negligent, rebuttable only by proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a family."

• Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil. 809 (1918) — Cited as the controlling precedent establishing the test for determining the existence of negligence based on the conduct of a prudent man.
• Maglana Rice and Corn Mill, Inc. v. Sps. Tan, 673 Phil. 532 (2011) — Cited for the rule that Rule 45 review is limited to questions of law and the Court is not a trier of facts.
• Macalinao v. Ong, 514 Phil. 127 (2005) and Vallacar Transit, Inc. v. Catubig, 664 Phil. 529 (2011) — Cited for the exception allowing factual review when the findings of the CA and trial court are contradictory.
• Cang v. Cullen, 620 Phil. 403 (2009) — Cited for the principle that the trial court's assessment of witness credibility is accorded great weight and respect because the trial judge has the unique opportunity to observe the witness firsthand.
• Mendoza v. Gomez, 736 Phil. 460 (2014) and Gulliang v. Bedania, 606 Phil. 57 (2009) — Cited for the application of Article 2185 of the Civil Code regarding the presumption of negligence for traffic violations.
• Travel & Tours Advisers, Inc. v. Cruz, G.R. No. 199282, March 14, 2016 — Cited for the rule on employer's solidary liability under Article 2180 and the requirement for employers to prove diligence in selection and supervision.
• Davao Holiday Transport Services Corporation v. Spouses Emphasis, 748 Phil. 921 (2014) — Cited for the standard that employers must examine qualifications, formulate standard operating procedures, and monitor implementation to overcome the presumption of negligence.
• Kapalaran Bus Line v. Coronado, 257 Phil. 797 (1989) — Cited for the principle that the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers should similarly benefit pedestrians and other vehicles on the road.
• Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. v. Paras, 686 Phil. 736 (2012) — Cited for the rule that interest on damages in quasi-delict cases is computed from the date when the trial court rendered its decision.

• Civil Code, Article 1733 — Establishes the duty of common carriers to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of passengers, which the Court extended to benefit other road users.
• Civil Code, Article 2176 — The basis for quasi-delictual liability for damages caused by negligence.
• Civil Code, Article 2180 — Provides for the solidary liability of employers for damages caused by their employees, with a presumption of negligence in selection or supervision that must be overcome by proof of diligence of a good father of a family.
• Civil Code, Article 2185 — Creates a presumption of negligence against a driver who violates traffic regulations at the time of a mishap.
• Republic Act No. 4136 (Land Transportation Code), Section 35 — Requires drivers to operate vehicles at a careful and prudent speed with due regard for traffic, width of the highway, and other conditions, and prohibits speeds greater than will permit stopping within the assured clear distance ahead.
• Rules of Court, Rule 45, Section 1 — Limits petitions for review on certiorari to questions of law, subject to exceptions.