Mallari, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals

A common carrier is liable for the death of a passenger caused by the negligence of its driver who overtakes another vehicle at a curve in violation of traffic regulations, there being a presumption of negligence under Article 2185 of the Civil Code and a presumption of fault against the carrier under Articles 1755, 1756, and 1759 of the Civil Code.

Alfredo Mallari, Sr. owned a passenger jeepney driven by his co-petitioner Alfredo Mallari, Jr. On 14 October 1987, the jeepney collided with a delivery van owned by respondent Bulletin Publishing Corporation along the National Highway in Dinalupihan, Bataan, resulting in the death of passenger Israel Reyes. The widow of the deceased filed a complaint for damages against both drivers, their employers, and the insurer.

On 14 October 1987, at about 5:00 o'clock in the morning, a passenger jeepney driven by Alfredo Mallari Jr. and owned by Alfredo Mallari Sr. collided with a delivery van owned by respondent Bulletin Publishing Corporation along the National Highway in Barangay San Pablo, Dinalupihan, Bataan. Mallari Jr. testified that he was following a blue Ford Fiera and decided to overtake it. Before overtaking, he saw the Bulletin delivery van approaching from the opposite direction, estimating it to be 100 feet away. Believing the distance was sufficient, he proceeded to overtake the Fiera. The collision occurred immediately after Mallari Jr. overtook the Fiera while negotiating a curve on the highway. The left rear portion of the jeepney was hit by the left front side of the delivery van. The impact caused the jeepney to turn around and fall on its left side, resulting in injuries to its passengers, including Israel Reyes, who eventually died due to the gravity of his injuries.

On 16 December 1987, Claudia G. Reyes, the widow of Israel Reyes, filed a complaint for damages against the Mallaris, Bulletin Publishing Corporation, its driver Felix Angeles, and the N.V. Netherlands Insurance Company. The complaint alleged that the collision was caused by the fault and negligence of both drivers. The trial court found the driver of the Bulletin van solely negligent, dismissing the complaint against the Mallaris. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, finding that the collision was caused by the sole negligence of Mallari Jr. for overtaking at a curve in violation of traffic rules. The appellate court held the Mallaris solidarily liable for damages and absolved Bulletin, its driver, and the insurer.

• Lack of Evidence on Overtaking at a Curve: Petitioners contended that there was no evidence to show that Mallari Jr. overtook a vehicle at a curve on the road at the time of the accident.
• Credibility of Witness: Petitioners argued that the testimony of Angeles on the overtaking made by Mallari Jr. was not credible and unreliable.
• Weight of Trial Court's Findings: Petitioners submitted that the trial court was in a better position than the Court of Appeals to assess the evidence and observe the witnesses, and thus its finding that the proximate cause of the collision was the negligence of Angeles should be given more weight.

• Negligence: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the proximate cause of the collision was the sole negligence of petitioner Mallari Jr. for overtaking at a curve.
• Credibility of Findings: Whether the trial court's factual findings and assessment of witness credibility should prevail over the Court of Appeals' contrary ruling.
• Liability of Common Carrier: Whether the owner of the passenger jeepney, Mallari Sr., is liable for the death of the passenger under the Civil Code provisions on common carriers.

• Negligence: No. The Court of Appeals correctly found that Mallari Jr. was solely negligent for overtaking at a curve, violating Section 41 of R.A. No. 4136.
• Credibility of Findings: No. The Court of Appeals' finding was supported by the sketch, spot report, and the driver's own testimony, overcoming the trial court's assessment.
• Liability of Common Carrier: Yes. Mallari Sr., as the owner of the jeepney acting as a common carrier, is presumed negligent and solidarily liable for the death of the passenger under Articles 1755, 1756, and 1759 of the Civil Code.

• Negligence: The Court found that Mallari Jr.'s own testimony established that he overtook a vehicle at a curve. He admitted seeing the oncoming van but proceeded with the overtaking maneuver, failing to accurately estimate the van's speed because it was dark. This act violated Section 41(a) and (b) of R.A. No. 4136, which prohibits overtaking when approaching a curve where the driver's view is obstructed. Under Article 2185 of the Civil Code, a driver is presumed negligent if violating a traffic regulation at the time of a mishap. Petitioners failed to present evidence to overcome this presumption.
• Credibility of Findings: The appellate court's finding was based not merely on witness credibility but on undisputed documentary evidence, specifically the sketch and spot report of the police authorities, which showed that the collision occurred after overtaking at a curve. Thus, the reversal by the Court of Appeals was justified.
• Liability of Common Carrier: As a common carrier, Mallari Sr. was bound to carry passengers safely using extraordinary diligence under Article 1755 of the Civil Code. Under Article 1756, a common carrier is presumed at fault or negligent in case of death or injuries to passengers unless it proves extraordinary diligence. Article 1759 further provides that the carrier is liable for the negligence of its employees, and this liability does not cease upon proof of diligence in the selection of employees. Since the death of the passenger was caused by the negligence of the driver, the carrier-owner was solidarily liable for the damages.

• Presumption of Negligence in Traffic Violations (Art. 2185, Civil Code) — 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 a traffic regulation. The Court applied this presumption to Mallari Jr., who violated the restriction on overtaking at a curve under R.A. No. 4136.
• Extraordinary Diligence of Common Carriers (Arts. 1755, 1756, and 1759, Civil Code) — A common carrier is bound to carry passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence. In case of death or injuries to passengers, the carrier is presumed at fault unless it proves extraordinary diligence. The carrier is liable for the negligence of its employees, and this liability does not cease upon proof of diligence in the selection of employees. The Court held Mallari Sr. solidarily liable as the owner of the jeepney engaged as a common carrier.

• "Under Art. 2185 of the Civil Code, unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap he was violating a traffic regulation." — This passage articulates the legal presumption applied to establish the driver's negligence due to his traffic violation.
• "Clearly, by the contract of carriage, the carrier jeepney owned by Mallari Sr. assumed the express obligation to transport the passengers to their destination safely and to observe extraordinary diligence with due regard for all the circumstances, and any injury or death that might be suffered by its passengers is right away attributable to the fault or negligence of the carrier." — This explains the basis of the common carrier's liability for the safety of its passengers under the contract of carriage.

• BLTB Co. vs. IAC, G.R. Nos. 74387-90, 14 November 1988, 167 SCRA 379 — Cited to support the rule that a driver abandoning his proper lane for overtaking has the duty to ensure the road is clear and to keep to the right side when rounding a curve.

• Section 41(a) and (b), Republic Act No. 4136 (The Land Transportation and Traffic Code) — Prohibits overtaking on the left side unless it is safe, and specifically prohibits overtaking when approaching a curve where the driver's view is obstructed within 500 feet. Applied to establish that Mallari Jr. violated traffic regulations.
• Article 2185, Civil Code — Presumes negligence of a driver violating traffic regulations at the time of a mishap. Applied to establish Mallari Jr.'s negligence.
• Articles 1755, 1756, and 1759, Civil Code — Impose extraordinary diligence on common carriers, presume their fault in case of passenger death or injury, and hold them liable for the negligence of their employees. Applied to hold Mallari Sr. solidarily liable.

Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ.