Eddie Cortel y Carna and Yellow Bus Line, Inc. vs. Cecile Gepaya-Lim

Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, a presumption or inference of negligence arises where the instrumentality causing injury is under the exclusive control or management of the defendant and the occurrence would not ordinarily happen absent proper care; the employer is also presumed negligent when its employee causes damage through negligence in the performance of duties, rebuttable only by proof of diligence of a good father of a family in selection and supervision.

Eddie Cortel y Carna was employed as a bus driver by Yellow Bus Line, Inc., which operated the bus involved in the incident. Robert C. Lim was a motorcycle rider and SP03; Cecile Gepaya-Lim is his widow. The dispute concerns liability for damages under the Civil Code's quasi-delict provisions, particularly Articles 2176 and 2180, for a fatal vehicular collision.

On 29 October 2004, Eddie Cortel y Carna was driving a bus operated by Yellow Bus Line, Inc., on its way from Marbel, Koronadal to Davao City. At around 9:45 in the evening, while traversing Crossing Rubber in the Municipality of Tupi, South Cotabato, Cortel noticed two trucks with glaring headlights coming from the opposite direction. Cortel stated that he was driving at 40 to 50 kilometers per hour and reduced his speed to 20 kilometers per hour upon noticing the trucks. The bus then hit a black motorcycle allegedly without tail light reflectors.

The impact dragged the motorcycle three meters before it came to a full stop. Lim, who was riding the motorcycle, was thrown upward and then slammed into the bus, hitting the base of its right windshield wiper. The motorcycle got entangled with the broken bumper of the bus. According to Cortel, Lim was wearing a black jacket and was riding without a helmet. Felix Larang, the bus conductor, alighted to aid Lim and instructed Cortel to move back to release Lim and the motorcycle from the front bumper. Two bystanders assisted. After reversing the bus and freeing Lim and the motorcycle, Cortel drove the bus away and went to a nearby bus station where he surrendered to authorities; he claimed he left the scene because he feared for his life.

Cecile Gepaya-Lim, Lim's widow, filed a complaint for damages against petitioners, docketed as Civil Case No. 05-010. During trial, SPO4 Eddie S. Orencio, the investigating officer, testified that Lim was driving a DT Yamaha 125 black motorcycle when the accident took place. Cortel's bus and the motorcycle were going in the same direction. SPO4 Orencio testified that the bus bumped the motorcycle from behind. The motorcycle's engine and chassis were severely damaged, while its rear rim was totally damaged.

Yellow Bus Line presented and offered in evidence photographs showing that the bus's right front windshield and wiper were damaged, and that the bus's lower right side bumper was perforated. During the preliminary conference, Yellow Bus Line also presented Cortel's certificates showing that he attended the following seminars: (1) Basic Tire Care Seminar; (2) Basic Tire Knowledge and Understanding Retreading; and (3) Traffic Rules and Regulations, Defensive Driving and Road Courtesy Seminar. However, the certificates were not offered in evidence during trial.

The trial court found that Cortel was at fault, that the bus was running fast when it bumped the motorcycle, and that the accident was the proximate cause of Lim's death. It also found that Yellow Bus Line failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of Cortel. The Court of Appeals found that both vehicles were driving in the same lane and headed in the same direction; that vehicles running on highways do not normally collide unless one of the drivers is negligent; that Cortel had exclusive control and management of the bus; and that there was no evidence Lim had contributory negligence. It ruled that petitioners failed to prove the motorcycle had no headlights or that Lim was not wearing a helmet, and that even if the motorcycle was black and Lim wore a black jacket, these were not prohibited by traffic rules and regulations. The Court of Appeals noted that upon impact Lim's body was thrown upward, indicating high speed, and that the damages to the motorcycle and bus disproved Cortel's allegation that he was driving at 20 kilometers per hour. It also ruled that Yellow Bus Line failed to exercise the care and diligence of a good father of a family in its selection and supervision of employees, and that the certificates were not admissible because the police officer who allegedly signed them was not presented and because they were not offered as evidence during trial.

• Factual Findings and Speed: Petitioners sought review of the factual findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, alleging that they erred in concluding that the bus driven by Cortel was running fast when the accident occurred.
• Res Ipsa Loquitur: Petitioners challenged the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to the case.
• Contributory Negligence: Petitioners alleged that Lim was equally negligent because he was riding without a helmet and the motorcycle had no tail lights.

• Review of Factual Findings: Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming with modification the trial court's decision, particularly its findings on the cause of the vehicular accident and Cortel's speed.
• Res Ipsa Loquitur: Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to the collision.
• Contributory Negligence: Whether Lim was contributorily negligent because he was riding without a helmet and the motorcycle had no tail lights.
• Employer's Due Diligence: Whether Yellow Bus Line exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of Cortel.
• Damages and Interest: Whether the awards for loss of earning capacity, funeral and burial expenses, death indemnity, moral damages, attorney's fees, and interest are proper.

• Review of Factual Findings: No. The Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error; factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive, and the cause of a vehicular accident and the persons responsible are factual questions.
• Res Ipsa Loquitur: Yes. The doctrine applies because the bus was under Cortel's exclusive control and the collision would not ordinarily have occurred absent negligence.
• Contributory Negligence: No. Lim's alleged contributory negligence was not established; petitioners offered only bare allegations without evidence.
• Employer's Due Diligence: No. Yellow Bus Line failed to rebut the presumption of employer negligence; it did not prove diligence in selection and supervision.
• Damages and Interest: Affirmed with modification. The Court of Appeals' awards were sustained, but the P25,000 burial and funeral award was characterized as temperate damages, and interest was reduced to 6% per annum from finality until fully paid.

• Review of Factual Findings: The Court reiterated that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court. Questions regarding the cause of a vehicular accident and the persons responsible are factual questions that the Court cannot pass upon, particularly when the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are completely in accord. The Court found no justification to fall under the exceptions. The Court of Appeals' conclusion that the bus was running fast was supported by the result of the collision: if the bus were traveling at 20 kilometers per hour, it would not have bumped the motorcycle traveling in the same direction with such impact that it threw the rider upward before hitting the base of the right windshield wiper, nor would it have dragged the motorcycle three meters. The damages sustained by both the motorcycle and the bus also indicated fast speed. Thus, no reversible error was committed.
• Res Ipsa Loquitur: The Court explained that while negligence is not ordinarily inferred or presumed, and the mere happening of an accident does not generally give rise to an inference of negligence, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permits an inference or presumption of negligence where the facts and circumstances accompanying the injury so warrant. The doctrine applies where: (1) the accident is of such character as to warrant an inference that it would not have happened except for the defendant's negligence; (2) the accident was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management or control of the person charged; and (3) the accident was not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the injured person. Here, Cortel had exclusive control of the bus, including its speed. The bus and motorcycle were traveling in the same direction, and the collision would not have happened without negligence on Cortel's part. The collision caused Lim's death. There was no evidence that Lim contributed to the accident. Thus, res ipsa loquitur applied.
• Contributory Negligence: Petitioners alleged Lim was equally negligent because he was not wearing a helmet and the motorcycle had no tail lights. The Court of Appeals correctly found these allegations self-serving because petitioners presented no evidence to prove them. Even if the motorcycle was black and Lim wore a black jacket, these facts were not prohibited by traffic rules and regulations. No contributory negligence was established.
• Employer's Due Diligence: When an employee causes damage due to his own negligence while performing his duties, there arises a presumption that the employer is negligent. This presumption can be rebutted only by proof of observance by the employer of the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees. Yellow Bus Line failed to prove such diligence. The certificates of attendance to seminars were not even offered as evidence during trial. The Court of Appeals also found them inadmissible because the police officer who allegedly signed them was not presented. Thus, the presumption of employer negligence stood.
• Damages and Interest: The Court sustained the Court of Appeals' award of loss of earning capacity and damages. The increase in loss of earning capacity was proper under the formula: Net earning capacity = Life Expectancy x [Gross Annual Income - Living Expenses (50% of gross annual income)], where life expectancy = 2/3 (80 - age of deceased). The Court of Appeals clearly intended to award P25,000 as temperate damages for burial and funeral expenses instead of the P15,000 actual damage to the motorcycle awarded by the trial court, because no evidence was presented to prove the motorcycle damage; the term "temperate damages" was inadvertently omitted in the Court of Appeals' dispositive portion. The Court reduced the interest rate to 6% per annum on all damages awarded from the date of finality of the Decision until fully paid.

• Res ipsa loquitur — The doctrine means "the thing or transaction speaks for itself." While negligence is not ordinarily presumed, the facts or circumstances accompanying an injury may raise a presumption or at least permit an inference of negligence where the instrumentality causing the injury was under the control or management of the defendant and the occurrence would not ordinarily happen if those in control used proper care. The Court applied the doctrine because Cortel had exclusive control of the bus, including its speed, and the collision with the motorcycle traveling in the same direction would not have happened without negligence on his part. The elements are: (1) the accident is of such character as to warrant an inference that it would not have happened except for the defendant's negligence; (2) the accident must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management or control of the person charged with the negligence complained of; and (3) the accident must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured.
• Presumption of employer negligence under Article 2180 — When an employee causes damage due to his own negligence while performing his duties, there arises a presumption that the employer is negligent. The presumption can be rebutted only by proof of observance by the employer of the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees. Yellow Bus Line failed to rebut the presumption because the certificates of attendance to seminars were not offered in evidence during trial and were found inadmissible, leaving no proof of due diligence.
• Binding effect of factual findings affirmed by the Court of Appeals — Factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court. Questions regarding the cause of a vehicular accident and the persons responsible are factual questions that the Supreme Court cannot pass upon, particularly when the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are completely in accord. The Court applied this rule to decline review of the findings that the bus was running fast and that Cortel was negligent.
• Computation of loss of earning capacity — Net earning capacity is computed as Life Expectancy x [Gross Annual Income - Living Expenses (50% of gross annual income)], where life expectancy is 2/3 (80 - the age of the deceased). The Court sustained the Court of Appeals' recomputation of Lim's lost earning capacity at P2,139,540 using this formula.
• Temperate damages for burial and funeral expenses — Where no evidence proves actual damages for burial and funeral expenses, temperate damages may be awarded, and the term "temperate damages" may be supplied in the dispositive portion where the decision clearly intended such an award. The Court noted that the Court of Appeals intended to award P25,000 as temperate damages for burial and funeral expenses instead of the P15,000 actual damage to the motorcycle, but inadvertently omitted the term in its dispositive portion.

• "The elements of res ipsa loquitur are: (1) the accident is of such character as to warrant an inference that it would not have happened except for the defendant's negligence; (2) the accident must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management or control of the person charged with the negligence complained of; and (3) the accident must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured." — This states the three-part test applied by the Court to infer negligence from the collision.
• "The rule is when an employee causes damage due to his own negligence while performing his own duties, there arises a presumption that his employer is negligent." — This states the employer-liability presumption that Yellow Bus Line failed to rebut.
• "If, indeed, the speed of the bus was only 20 kilometers per hour as Cortel claimed, it would not bump the motorcycle traveling in the same direction with such impact that it threw its rider upward before hitting the base of its right windshield wiper." — This illustrates the Court's factual reasoning supporting the finding that the bus was running fast.
• "The increase in the award for loss of earning capacity is proper due to the computation of the award in accordance with the following formula: Net earning capacity Life Expectancy x [Gross Annual Income- Living Expenses (50% of gross annual income)], where life expectancy 2/3 (80 - the age of the deceased)." — This states the formula for net earning capacity sustained on review.

• Bormaheco, Inc. vs. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc., 639 Phil. 322 (2010) — Cited for the rule that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court.
• DST Movers Corporation vs. People's General Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 198627, 13 January 2016 — Cited for the rule that questions regarding the cause of a vehicular accident and the persons responsible are factual questions.
• Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Alberto, 680 Phil. 813, 824-825 (2012) — Cited for the explanation of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
• Josefa vs. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 182705, 18 July 2014, 730 SCRA 126 — Cited for the elements of res ipsa loquitur.
• Davao Holiday Transport Services Corporation vs. Emphasis, G.R. No. 211424, 26 November 2014, 743 SCRA 299 — Cited for the presumption of employer negligence when an employee causes damage due to his own negligence.
• People vs. Casas, G.R. No. 212565, 25 February 2015, 752 SCRA 94 — Cited for the formula for net earning capacity.
• The Heirs of Poe vs. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc., 602 Phil. 564 (2009) — Cited by the Court of Appeals for the formula for lost earning capacity.
• Villa Rey Transit, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 142 Phil. 494 (1970) — Cited by the Court of Appeals for the formula for lost earning capacity.

• Article 2176, Civil Code — Provides liability for damages caused by negligence. The trial court invoked this provision in ordering petitioners to pay damages to Lim's heirs.
• Article 2180, Civil Code — Establishes the employer's vicarious liability and the presumption of negligence when an employee causes damage in the performance of his duties; the presumption is rebuttable by proof of the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of employees. The Supreme Court applied this provision to Yellow Bus Line.

Brion, Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concurred.