Tan vs. Jam Transit, Inc.

Res ipsa loquitur applies when (1) the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence, (2) it is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants, and (3) the possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated; the doctrine is evidentiary and does not dispense with proof of negligence, but it permits an inference or presumption of negligence and shifts to the defendant the burden of going forward with proof. An employer is solidarily liable for its employee's quasi-delict under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code unless it proves diligence in selection and supervision.

Luz Palanca Tan owned a passenger-type jitney used in her egg dealership, while JAM Transit, Inc. operated passenger buses and employed Eddie Dimayuga as a bus driver. Alexander M. Ramirez had been employed by Tan as a driver since 1993. The collision between Tan's jitney and JAM's passenger bus implicated the Civil Code provisions on quasi-delict and the Land Transportation and Traffic Code.

Luz Palanca Tan owned a passenger-type jitney with plate number DKF-168, which she used in her business of nets and ropes and egg dealership based in Santa Cruz, Laguna. Alexander M. Ramirez had been employed by Tan as a driver since 1993. JAM Transit, Inc. owned a passenger bus with plate number DVG-557 and body number 8030, driven by Eddie Dimayuga (referred to in the testimonial summary as Edgardo Dimayuga). On March 14, 1997, at around 5:00 a.m. (the complaint's date; portions of the testimonial evidence referred to March 13, 1997), the jitney, loaded with quail eggs and duck eggs (balot and salted eggs) and driven by Ramirez with a helper, collided with the JAM Transit bus bound for Manila at an intersection along Maharlika Highway, Barangay Bangyas, Calauan, Laguna. Tan alleged that Dimayuga was reckless, negligent, imprudent, and not observing traffic rules and regulations, causing the bus to collide with the jitney, which was then, with care and proper light direction signals, about to negotiate a left turn towards the feeder or barangay road of Barangay Bangyas, Calauan, Laguna going to the Poblacion. The jitney turned turtle along the shoulder of the road, its cargo of eggs was destroyed, and Ramirez and his helper were injured and hospitalized, incurring medical expenses at the Pagamutang Pangmasa in Bay, Laguna. Tan prayed for ₱400,000.00 for the damaged jitney, ₱142,210.00 for the destroyed shipment, ₱20,000.00 moral damages, ₱20,000.00 attorney's fees plus ₱1,000.00 per court appearance, and other reliefs.

In its Answer with Counterclaim, JAM admitted ownership of the passenger bus and that Dimayuga was under its employ, but denied the allegations and claimed that the accident occurred due to the gross negligence of Ramirez. JAM sought, by counterclaim, ₱100,000.00 for damages sustained by the bus, ₱100,000.00 for loss of income, and ₱50,000.00 as attorney's fees plus ₱3,000.00 per court appearance.

At trial, Tan testified that she was informed by her husband that one of their jeepneys, loaded with eggs, was bumped by a JAM Transit bus when the latter overtook the jeepney; she claimed damages of ₱650,000.00, consisting of ₱400,000.00 for the jeepney based on an estimate from Plantilla Motors, ₱142,000.00 for the lost egg shipment based on a certification issued by the Calauan Police Station, and ₱15,000.00 for hospitalization and treatment of the driver and his companion. On cross-examination, she stated that Ramirez had been under her employ since 1993 and was still working for her; she did not ask for his NBI or police clearance before hiring him and had no knowledge of his prior driving experience. Ramirez testified that on March 13, 1997, at around 4:00 a.m., he reported for work at Tan's warehouse in Pagsawitan, Santa Cruz, obtained the passenger jeep loaded with salted eggs, balot, and quail eggs for delivery to Lucena City, and chose Maharlika Road at San Isidro, Barangay Bangyas, Calauan, Laguna because it was better than the road along Barangay Dayap; while on Maharlika Road, he met an accident at around 5:00 a.m. and the jitney turned turtle. PO3 Daniel C. Escares testified that he investigated the accident, learned that the highway had a double straight yellow line prohibiting overtaking on both sides, prepared a sketch of the site, and authenticated photographs showing the scene and damages; he stated that the road was about 10 meters wide, with a shoulder of about 5 meters diminished to about 2 meters by encroachment, and that the accident site was near the intersection of Maharlika Highway and the barangay road leading to Barangay San Isidro. He also testified that residents relayed that the bus overtook the jeepney it was following and side-swept the jitney, dragging it toward the sampaguita gardens, but the trial court ordered the testimony regarding the information gathered from residents deleted. Rodrigo Condino, a mechanic at Plantilla Motors, testified that the jeepney was repaired after the accident and that an estimate of damage amounted to ₱450,000.00. Tan formally offered exhibits including the Articles of Incorporation of JAM Transit, Inc., the Calauan police certification, the PNP-Calauan police report, the Plantilla Motors estimate, photographs, medical receipts, the jitney's certificate of registration, Dimayuga's driver's license, and a sketch of the accident site.

For its defense, JAM presented Dimayuga, who testified that he had been a passenger bus driver since 1983, was previously employed with the Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company, and had been employed with JAM Transit since 1992. He stated that on March 14, 1997, he reported for work and met an accident while driving the bus along the intersection of Maharlika Highway, Barangay Bangyas, at around 5:00 a.m.; he was driving at 40 km/h when a vehicle suddenly overtook the bus from the right side going to Calauan, and he could not evade it, causing the front portion of the bus and its mirror to be destroyed. On cross-examination, he stated that his route was Sta. Cruz-Lawton, he could not recall the bus conductor on Bangyas, he was not able to evade the jitney as there was no way to avoid the situation, the jitney was dragged to the side, and he and others took the driver from the jeepney to a hospital. JAM did not offer any documentary counter-evidence.

The RTC found the JAM passenger bus driver at fault, applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and ruled in favor of Tan. The CA later found that nothing in the record supported the RTC's finding that the JAM passenger bus was overtaking Tan's jitney; it noted that Ramirez only testified that he met an accident while transporting eggs along Maharlika Road, causing the jitney to turn turtle, and that the Certification made no mention that the JAM bus was overspeeding or overtaking the jitney. The CA also observed that there was no evidence as to who between Ramirez and Dimayuga was negligent. In its own factual assessment, the RTC had found from the photographs that the jitney's left side portion was directly hit by the front-right portion of the bus, that the bus and jitney were almost perpendicular to each other when the collision took place, with the bus directly hitting the jitney head-on, and that the bus driver's claim that the jitney overtook from the right was illogical because the right shoulder was rough and narrow.

• Res Ipsa Loquitur: Petitioner posited that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable given the circumstances of the case.
• Reversal of the CA and Reinstatement of the RTC: Petitioner sought the reversal of the CA Decision dated June 2, 2008 and the reinstatement of the RTC Decision dated December 20, 2006.

• Negligence of the Jitney Driver: JAM denied liability and claimed that the accident occurred due to the gross negligence of Ramirez.
• Counterclaim for Damages: JAM sought payment of ₱100,000.00 for damages sustained by the bus, ₱100,000.00 for loss of income, and ₱50,000.00 as attorney's fees plus ₱3,000.00 per court appearance.
• Jitney Overtook from the Right: In the proceedings below, JAM's driver testified that the jitney overtook the bus from the right and that there was no way to evade it; JAM postulated that the jitney driver was negligent and that the jitney's own negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.
• Actual Damages Not Warranted: Respondent argued that the award of ₱400,000.00 for damage to the jitney was not warranted because the evidence was merely an estimate, and that the cargo damage claim of ₱142,210.00 was supported only by a certification whose information was supplied by petitioner herself.

• Res Ipsa Loquitur: Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies notwithstanding the absence of direct testimonial evidence as to how the collision occurred.
• Negligence and Proximate Cause: Whether Dimayuga was negligent and whether his negligence was the proximate cause of the collision and the resulting damages.
• Employer Liability: Whether JAM is solidarily liable with Dimayuga under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code.
• Damages: Whether the awards of actual damages for the jitney and cargo, temperate damages, medical expenses, moral damages, attorney's fees, and costs are proper.

• Res Ipsa Loquitur: Yes. The requisites were present: the accident ordinarily does not occur absent negligence, the bus was within Dimayuga's exclusive control, and no contributory negligence could be attributed to Ramirez.
• Negligence and Proximate Cause: Yes. Dimayuga violated R.A. No. 4136, Sections 41(c) and 41(e), by overtaking at an intersection and across double yellow center lines; his negligence was the proximate cause.
• Employer Liability: Yes. JAM is solidarily liable under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code, having failed to rebut the presumption of negligence in selection and supervision.
• Damages: No as to actual damages for the jitney and cargo, because the evidence consisted only of an estimate and a certification. Yes as to temperate damages of ₱250,000.00, medical expenses of ₱1,327.00, moral damages of ₱10,000.00, attorney's fees of ₱10,000.00, and costs.

• Res Ipsa Loquitur: The doctrine literally means "the thing or the transaction speaks for itself." It permits an inference or presumption of negligence from the occurrence of an injury and surrounding circumstances, making out a prima facie case and presenting a question of fact for the defendant to meet with an explanation. It is not substantive law and does not independently create liability; it is evidentiary, a mode of proof, or a procedural convenience that relieves the plaintiff of producing specific proof of negligence but does not dispense with proof of negligence. The requisites are: (1) the accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence; (2) it is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants; and (3) the possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated. The Court found all three. Ramirez had no vivid recollection of how the jitney was hit; other possible eyewitnesses were unavailable. The authenticated photographs showed the highway had double yellow center lines, both vehicles ended on the opposite lane, and the bus's front-right portion hit the jitney's left side, causing the jitney to turn turtle. The sketch and police certification corroborated these facts. No two vehicles traversing the same lane with double yellow center lines would collide and end up on the opposite lane unless someone was negligent. The bus was under Dimayuga's exclusive management and control, and no contributory negligence could be attributed to Ramirez on the available evidence. Thus, res ipsa loquitur applied.
• Negligence and Proximate Cause: The available evidence, though lacking direct testimony on the exact road positions, pointed to the bus overtaking on the left lane. The highway had two continuous yellow lines at the center, which meant no vehicle should overtake on either side; the Court took judicial notice of the "double yellow center lines" regulation as an internationally recognized pavement regulation intended to avoid accidents. R.A. No. 4136, Section 41(e), prohibits overtaking in a no passing or overtaking zone, and Section 41(c) prohibits overtaking or passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction at any intersection of highways unless controlled by traffic signal or permitted by a watchman or peace officer. The collision occurred at an intersection. By overtaking on the left lane, Dimayuga violated both the double yellow center lines regulation and the prohibition on overtaking at highway intersections. Negligence was therefore attributed only to him, and that negligence was the proximate cause of the injury sustained by Tan. The prima facie finding of negligence was not sufficiently rebutted or contradicted by Dimayuga.
• Employer Liability: 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; if there is no pre-existing contractual relation, the fault or negligence is a quasi-delict. Under Article 2180, the obligation is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible; employers are liable for damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, and the responsibility ceases only when the employer proves that it observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. Whenever an employee's negligence causes damage or injury to another, a presumption juris tantum arises that the employer failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in selection (culpa in eligiendo) or supervision (culpa in vigilando). To avoid liability, the employer must overcome the presumption by convincing proof of care and diligence in selection and supervision. JAM presented only Dimayuga's testimony and no other documentary or testimonial evidence. The presumption stood, and JAM was solidarily liable for the damages sustained by Tan.
• Damages: The award of ₱400,000.00 for damage to the jitney was not warranted because the evidence was merely an estimate made by A. Plantilla Motors. The award of ₱142,210.00 for the destroyed cargo of eggs was also not warranted because the supporting document was merely a Certification, and the information therein was supplied by petitioner herself as to the number of pieces of the different eggs and the corresponding price per piece. To warrant actual or compensatory damages for repair or damage sustained, the best evidence should be receipts or other documentary proofs of the actual amount expended. However, it was duly proven that the jitney was damaged and had to be repaired, and that the cargo of eggs was destroyed, but the actual amounts expended or lost were not proven. Temperate damages of ₱250,000.00 were therefore appropriate under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, which allows temperate damages when pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty. The trial court's award of ₱1,327.00 for medical expenses was sustained because it was supported by receipts. The awards of ₱10,000.00 moral damages, ₱10,000.00 attorney's fees, and costs were sustained as in order and authorized by law; although the trial court did not indicate the basis for attorney's fees, the award was justified because petitioner was compelled to litigate and incur expenses to vindicate her rights.

• Res ipsa loquitur — A Latin phrase meaning "the thing or the transaction speaks for itself." It is an evidentiary rule, not a substantive rule, that permits an inference or presumption of negligence from the occurrence of an injury and the surrounding circumstances, making out a plaintiff's prima facie case and presenting a question of fact for the defendant to meet with an explanation. It does not dispense with proof of negligence; it merely relieves the plaintiff of producing specific proof of negligence and shifts to the defendant the burden of going forward with proof. The requisites are: (1) the accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence; (2) it is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants; and (3) the possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated. The Court applied the doctrine because the collision on a double-yellow-line highway intersection, the bus's exclusive control, and the absence of contributory negligence by Ramirez satisfied all three requisites.
• Employer liability for quasi-delict (culpa in eligiendo and culpa in vigilando) — Under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, fault or negligence causing damage to another gives rise to an obligation to pay for the damage done, and if there is no pre-existing contractual relation, the fault or negligence is a quasi-delict. Under Article 2180, employers are liable for damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, and the responsibility ceases only when the employer proves that it observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. When an employee's negligence causes damage or injury to another, a presumption juris tantum arises that the employer failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in selection (culpa in eligiendo) or supervision (culpa in vigilando). The employer must overcome the presumption by convincing proof of diligence. JAM failed to do so, presenting only Dimayuga's testimony, and was held solidarily liable.
• Photographs as physical evidence — Photographs are physical evidence, a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth ranking high in the hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. When duly verified and shown by extrinsic evidence to be faithful representations of the subject as of the time in question, they are admissible in the discretion of the trial court as aids in understanding the evidence, the situation or condition of objects or premises, or the circumstances of an accident. The Court relied on the authenticated photographs, together with the sketch and police certification, to establish the relative positions of the vehicles and the fact that the bus hit the left-turning jitney.
• Police blotter entries — Although police blotters are of little probative value, they are admitted and considered in the absence of competent evidence to refute the facts stated therein. Entries in police records made by a police officer in the performance of a duty especially enjoined by law are prima facie evidence of the facts stated, and their probative value may be substantiated or nullified by other competent evidence. The Court considered the Certification whose entries were adopted from the police blotter, together with the sketch and photographs, as proving how the collision occurred.
• Traffic regulation on overtaking — The "double yellow center lines" regulation, which the Court takes judicial notice of as an internationally recognized pavement regulation, prohibits overtaking on either side of the road and is intended to avoid accidents along highways. R.A. No. 4136, Section 41(e), prohibits overtaking or passing in a no passing or overtaking zone, and Section 41(c) prohibits overtaking or passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction at any intersection of highways unless controlled by traffic signal or permitted by a watchman or peace officer. Dimayuga violated both provisions by overtaking on the left lane at an intersection, and his negligence was the proximate cause of the collision.
• Temperate damages — Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages may be recovered when pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty. The Court awarded ₱250,000.00 in temperate damages in lieu of actual damages for the damaged jitney and destroyed cargo because the fact of damage and loss was proven, but the actual amounts expended or lost were not proven by receipts or other documentary proofs.

• "Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase that literally means "the thing or the transaction speaks for itself." It is a maxim for the rule that the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiff’s prima facie case, and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation." — This passage defines the doctrine and states its function as an evidentiary rule permitting an inference or presumption of negligence from the accident and surrounding circumstances.
• "However, res ipsa loquitur is not a rule of substantive law and does not constitute an independent or separate ground for liability. Instead, it is considered as merely evidentiary, a mode of proof, or a mere procedural convenience, since it furnishes a substitute for, and relieves a plaintiff of, the burden of producing a specific proof of negligence." — This passage clarifies that the doctrine does not dispense with proof of negligence but merely shifts the burden of going forward with proof to the defendant.
• "Still, before resort to the doctrine may be allowed, the following requisites must be satisfactorily shown: 1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; 2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants; and 3. The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated." — This passage enumerates the three requisites for the application of res ipsa loquitur, which the Court found present in this case.
• "Indeed, no two motor vehicles traversing the same lane of a highway with double yellow center lines will collide as a matter of course, both ending up on the opposite lane, unless someone is negligent." — This passage is the Court's ratio for applying the doctrine to the collision, given the double yellow center lines and the positions of the vehicles after the accident.

• Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124354, December 29, 1999, 321 SCRA 584 — Cited for the definition and evidentiary character of res ipsa loquitur.
• Macalinao vs. Ong, G.R. No. 146635, December 14, 2005, 477 SCRA 740 — Cited for the requisites of res ipsa loquitur and for the rule that entries in police records made in the performance of duty are prima facie evidence of the facts stated.
• Jose vs. Court of Appeals, 379 Phil. 30 (2000) — Cited for the rule that photographs are physical evidence, a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth ranking high in the hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.
• Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. vs. C & A Construction, Inc., G.R. No. 156034, October 1, 2003, 412 SCRA 524 — Cited for the presumption juris tantum that an employer failed to exercise diligence in the selection or supervision of its employee.
• Light Rail Transit Authority vs. Navidad, 445 Phil. 31 (2003); Metro Manila Transit Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 435 Phil. 129 (2002) — Cited for the employer's burden to overcome the presumption by convincing proof that it exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family.
• G.Q. Garments, Inc. vs. Miranda, G.R. No. 161722, July 20, 2006, 495 SCRA 741 — Cited for the rule that the best evidence for actual or compensatory damages for repair or damage sustained is receipts or other documentary proofs of the actual amount expended.
• People of the Philippines vs. Anselmo Berondo, Jr. y Pateres, G.R. No. 177827, March 30, 2009; Republic vs. Tuvera, G.R. No. 148246, February 16, 2007, 516 SCRA 113 — Cited for the award of temperate damages under Article 2224 of the Civil Code.
• Pacific Banking Employees Organization vs. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 495 — Cited in the RTC findings quoted with concurrence for the rule that preponderance of evidence means evidence as a whole superior to that of the other party.

• Article 2176, Civil Code — Defines quasi-delict: whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done; if there is no pre-existing contractual relation, the fault or negligence is a quasi-delict. Applied to hold Dimayuga liable for negligence.
• Article 2180, Civil Code — Makes employers liable for damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even if not engaged in business or industry; responsibility ceases when the employer proves observance of all diligence of a good father of a family. Applied to hold JAM solidarily liable because it failed to rebut the presumption of negligence in selection and supervision.
• Article 2224, Civil Code — Allows temperate damages when pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty. Applied to award ₱250,000.00 in lieu of actual damages for the jitney and cargo.
• Article 2208(2), Civil Code — Authorizes attorney's fees when the defendant's act or omission compelled the plaintiff to litigate to vindicate her rights. Cited to sustain the ₱10,000.00 attorney's fees award.
• Section 41(e), R.A. No. 4136 — Prohibits overtaking or passing, or attempting to overtake or pass, any other vehicle proceeding in the same direction in any "no passing or overtaking zone." Applied because the highway had double yellow center lines.
• Section 41(c), R.A. No. 4136 — Prohibits overtaking or passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction at any intersection of highways unless controlled by traffic signal or permitted by a watchman or peace officer. Applied because the collision occurred at an intersection.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari; the procedural vehicle for Tan's petition to the Supreme Court.

Renato C. Corona (Chairperson), Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., and Diosdado M. Peralta concurred.