DEL CARMEN V. BACOY.doc

8/9/2019 DEL CARMEN V. BACOY.doc

1/6

Torts and DamagesRepublic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTBaguio

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 173870 April 25, 2012

OSCAR DEL CARMEN, JR., Petitioner,vs.GERONIMO ACO!, G"#r$i#% #%$ r&pr&'&%(i%) (*& +*il$r&%, %#&l- MAR! MARJORIE. MONSALUD, ERIC . MONSALUD, MET/IE ANN . MONSALUD, AREEN .MONSALUD, LEONARDO . MONSALUD, JR., #%$ CRISTINA . MONSALUD,Responents.

D ! " I S I O N

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

In this Petition for Revie# on "ertiorari,$the registere o#ner of a %otor vehicle challenges the

Decision&ate 'ul( $$, &))* of the "ourt of +ppeals "+- in "+/.R. "V No. *00*1 #hich hel

hi% liable for a%ages to the heirs of the victi%s #ho #ere run over b( the sai vehicle.

Factual +nteceents

+t a#n on Ne# 2ear3s Da( of $445, !%ilia Baco( 6onsalu !%ilia-, along #ith her spouse7eonaro 6onsalu, Sr. an their aughter /lena 6onsalu, #ere on their #a( ho%e fro% a"hrist%as part( the( attene in Poblacion, So%inot, 8a%boanga Del Sur. 9pon reaching Puro:Paglao% in So%inot, the( #ere run over b( a Fuso passenger ;eep bearing plate nu%ber 9VP! %inor chilren?of the 6onsalus, file "ivil "ase No. 4*&)&$4,*an

inepenent civil action for a%ages base on culpa aquiliana. +sie fro% +llan, also i%pleaetherein #ere his allege e%plo(ers, na%el(, the spouses Oscar el "ar%en, Sr. Oscar Sr.- anNor%a el "ar%en Spouses el "ar%en- an the registere o#ner of the ;eep, their son Oscar'r. /eroni%o pra(e for the rei%burse%ent of funeral an burial e>penses, as #ell as the a#arof attorne(3s fees, %oral an e>e%plar( a%ages resulting fro% the eath of the three victi%s,an loss of net inco%e earnings of !%ilia #ho #as e%plo(e as a public school teacher at the

ti%e of her eath.0

Defenants refuse to assu%e civil liabilit( for the victi%s3 eaths. Oscar Sr. averre that the6onsalus have no cause of action against the% because he an his #ife o not o#n the ;eep

an that the( #ere never the e%plo(ers of +llan .@For his part, Oscar 'r. clai%e to be a victi%

hi%self. =e allege that +llan an his friens 4stole his ;eep #hile it #as par:e besie his

river3s rente house to ta:e it for a ;o(rie. Both he an a vehicle %echanic testifie that thesub;ect ;eep can easil( be starte b( %ere pushing sansthe ignition :e(. The vehicle3s engine

shall then run but #ithout an( healights on.$)+n i%pl(ing that this #as the %anner b( #hich

the vehicle #as illegall( ta:en, Oscar 'r. sub%itte as part of his ocu%entar( evience the

state%ents$$of 'e%ar +larcon 'e%ar- an Ben;a%in +nu;ar Ben;a%in-. The t#o, #ho #ere

#ith +llan in the ;eep at the ti%e of the accient, eclare before the investigating officer thaturing sai ti%e, the vehicle3s healights #ere off. Because of this allegation, Oscar 'r. evenfile before the sa%e trial court a carnapping case against +llan an his co%panions oc:ete

as "ri%inal "ase No. 45$)5@).$&The case #as, ho#ever, is%isse for insufficienc( of

evience.$5

Oscar 'r. clarifie that +llan #as his ;eep conuctor an that it #as the latter3s brother, Rorigo

6aglasang Rorigo-, #ho #as e%plo(e as the river.$1In an( event, +llan3s e%plo(%ent as

conuctor #as alrea( severe before the %ishap occurre on 'anuar( $, $445 since he serve

as such conuctor onl( fro% the first #ee: of Dece%ber until Dece%ber $1, $44&.$?In support of

this, Oscar 'r. presente as #itnesses Faustino Sis%uno Faustino- an "resencio A'uniorABaobao "resencio-. Faustino, a resient of 6olave, testifie that #hen he boare the ;eepheaing to So%inot on Dece%ber 5$, $44&, it #as "resencio #ho #as the conuctor. =e also

believe that "recencio starte to #or: as such at aroun Dece%ber $? or $*, $44&.$*

"resencio, for his part, testifie that he #or:e as Oscar 'r.3s conuctor fro% Dece%ber $?,

$44& to 'anuar( $, $445 an that Rorigo #as his river.$0=e state that upon learning that the

;eep figure in an accient, he never bothere to verif( the ne#s. Instea, he #ent to 6isalip to#or: there as a conuctor for his brother3s vehicle, thereb( ter%inating his e%plo(%ent #ith

Oscar 'r.$@

Oscar 'r. li:e#ise testifie that it #as routinar( that after a a(3s trip, the ;eep #oul be par:e

besie Rorigo3s rente house$4for the ne>t earl(%orning operation.

/eroni%o, on the other han, averre that +llan #as still Oscar 'r.3s e%plo(ee subseuent toDece%ber $1, $44&. To prove this, he presente as #itnesses Saturnino 'u%a#an Saturnino-an 'ose Navarro 'ose-. Saturnino testifie that he #oul pa( his fare to +llan ever( ti%e he#oul boar the ;eep in going to 6olave an that the last ti%e he roe the sub;ect vehicle #ason Dece%ber &5, $44&. =e also clai%e that i%%eiatel( before 'anuar( $, $445, Rorigo an

+llan use to par: the ;eep at the (ar of his house.&)'ose li:e#ise atteste that +llan #as still

the ;eep conuctor uring the sai perio as he ha rien the ;eep %an( ti%es in %i

Dece%ber of $44&.&$

Ruling of the Regional Trial "ourt

In its Decision&&ate +pril $0, &))), the RT" e>culpate the spouses el "ar%en fro% civil

liabilit( for insufficienc( of evience. =o#ever, their son Oscar 'r. #as hel civill( liable in asubsiiar( capacit(. The RT" anchore its ruling pri%aril( on the principle of res ipsa lou itur,i.e., that a presu%ption of negligence on the part of a efenant %a( be inferre if the thing thatcause an in;ur( is sho#n to be uner his %anage%ent an that in the orinar( course of things,the accient #oul not have happene ha there been an e>ercise of care. Sai court

ratiocinate that Oscar 'r., as the registere o#ner of the ;eep, %anage an controlle the

1 thil lozada
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt22


2/6

Torts and Damagessa%e through his river Rorigo, in #hose house the ;eep #as usuall( par:e. Since both Oscar'r. an Rorigo #ere #ell a#are that the ;eep coul easil( be starte b( a %ere push even#ithout the ignition :e(, the( shoul have ta:en the necessar( precaution to prevent the vehiclefro% being use b( unauthoriCe persons li:e +llan. The RT" thus conclue that such lac: ofproper precaution, ue care an foresight constitute negligence %a:ing the registere o#ner ofthe vehicle civill( liable for the a%age cause b( the sa%e.

The RT" ispose of the case as follo#s

Eherefore, ;ug%ent is hereb( entere in favor of the plaintiffs an against the efenants +llan6aglasang an Oscar el "ar%en, 'r. orering

$. Defenant +77+N 6+/7+S+N/ to pa( the plaintiffs, an in case of insolvenc(, forefenant OS"+R D!7 "+R6!N, 'R., to pa( the plaintiffs, the follo#ing su%s

a. P05,$$&.)) for their funeral an burial e>pensesG

b. P$,))),))).)) %oral a%ages for the eath of the late !%ilia 6onsaluG

c. P&?),))).)) %oral a%ages for the eath of the late 7eonaro6onsalu, Sr.G

. P&?),))).)) %oral a%ages for the eath of the late /lena 6onsaluG

e. P

1), ))).)), for e>e%plar( a%agesG

f. P&),))).)) attorne(3s feesG an

g. The cost of this proceeings.

&. The is%issal of the co%plaint as against the spouses OS"+R D!7 "+R6!N SR.an NOR6+ D!7 "+R6!N.

SO ORD!R!D.&5

Oscar 'r. %ove for reconsieration&1contening that the provision on vicarious liabilit( of the

e%plo(er uner +rticle &$@) of the "ivil "oe &?reuires the e>istence of e%plo(ere%plo(ee

relationship an that the e%plo(ee #as acting #ithin the scope of his e%plo(%ent #hen the tortoccurre. =e stresse that even assu%ing that +llan #as his e%plo(ee, he #as h ire not as ariver but as a conuctor. =ence, +llan acte be(on the scope of his e%plo(%ent #hen herove the ;eep.

Oscar 'r. also stresse that the fact that the ;eep #as running #ithout its healights on at theti%e of the accient inubitabl( sho#s that the sa%e #as stolen. =e further allege that the ;eepcoul not have been ta:en b( onl( one person. +s Rorigo eclare in "ri%inal "ase No. 45$)5@) carnapping case-, base on his e>perience, the ;eep cannot be pushe b( onl( oneperson but b( at least five people in orer for it to start. This #as ue to the vehicle3s %ass an

the eep canal #hich separates the par:ing area fro% the curve roa that #as obstructe b( a

house.&*

Setting asie its earlier ecision, the lo#er court in its Orer&0ate 'une &$, &))) grante the

6otion for Reconsieration an absolve Oscar 'r. fro% civil liabilit(. It cite +rticle $)5 of theRevise Penal "oe #hich provies that for an e%plo(er to be subsiiaril( liable for the cri%inalacts of his e%plo(ee, the latter shoul have co%%itte the sa%e in the ischarge of his uties.The court agree #ith Oscar 'r. that this conition is #anting in +llan3s case as he #as not acting

in the ischarge of his uties as a conuctor #hen he rove the ;eep.

The court also eclare the octrine of res ipsa louitur inapplicable since the propert( o#nercannot be %ae responsible for the a%ages cause b( his propert( b( reason of the cri%inalacts of another. It then a;uge that onl( +llan shoul bear the conseuences of his cri%inalacts. Thus

E=!R!FOR!, pre%ises consiere, the 6OTION FOR

R!"ONSID!R+TION is grante, an efenant OS"+R D!7 "+R6!N 'R. is hereb( absolvefro% all civil liabilit( arising fro% the felonious acts of convicte accuse +77+N 6+/7+S+N/.

IT IS SO ORD!R!D.&@

/eroni%o appeale.

Ruling of the "ourt of +ppeals

In its 'ul( $$, &))* Decision,&4the "+ grante the appeal.

In resolving the case, the "+ first eter%ine the preli%inar( issue of #hether there #as ane%plo(ere%plo(ee relationship bet#een Oscar 'r. an +llan at the ti%e of the accient. It rulein the affir%ative an gave %ore creence to the testi%onies of /eroni%o3s #itnesses than tothose of Oscar 'r.3s #itnesses, Faustino an "resencio. The "+ ratiocinate that unli:e the#itness presente b( /eroni%o, Faustino never resie in Poblacion an thus has li%ite:no#lege of the place. =is testi%on( #as also unreliable consiering that he onl( roe the

sub;ect ;eep t#ice5)uring the last t#o #ee:s of Dece%ber $44&. +s regars "resencio3stesti%on(, the appellate court foun it puCCling #h( he appeare to have acte uninteresteupon learning that the ;eep #as the sub;ect of an accient #hen it #as his brea an butter. Saicourt li:e#ise consiere uestionable Oscar 'r.3s asseveration that "resencio replace +llan as

conuctor #hen "resencio testifie that he replace a certain Su%agang 'r.5$

Eith regar to the %ain issue, the "+ a;uge Oscar 'r. liable to the heirs of the victi%s baseon the principle that the registere o#ner of a vehicle is irectl( an pri%aril( responsible for thein;uries or eath of thir parties cause b( the operation of such vehicle. It isbelieve Oscar'r.3s efense that the ;eep #as stolen not onl( because the carnapping case file against +llanan his co%panions #as is%isse but also because, given the circu%stances, Oscar 'r. isee%e to have given +llan the i%plie per%ission to use the sub;ect vehicle. To support itsconclusion, the "+ cite the follo#ing circu%stances siblings Rorigo an +llan #ere bothe%plo(ees assigne to the sai ;eepG after a a(3s #or:, sai vehicle #oul be par:e ;ust

besie Rorigo3s house #here +llan also liveG the ;eep coul easil( be starte even #ithout the

2 thil lozada
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt31


3/6

Torts and Damagesuse of an ignition :e(G the sai par:ing area #as not fence or secure to prevent theunauthoriCe use of the vehicle #hich can be starte even #ithout the ignition :e(.

The ispositive portion of the "+ Decision reas

E=!R!FOR!, pre%ises consiere, the instant appeal is /R+NT!D. The assaile Orer ate&$ 'une &))) of the Regional Trial "ourt Branch &5-, 6olave, 8a%boanga el Sur, in "ivil "aseNo. 4*&),&$4 is S!T +SID! an a ne# one is hereb( entere. OS"+R D!7 "+R6!N, 'r. an

+77+N 6+/7+S+N/ are hel pri%aril( liable, ;ointl( an severall(, to pa( plaintiffsappellants

$. "ivil ine%nit( for the eath of !%ilia Baco( 6onsalu, 7eonaro 6onsalu Sr.,an /lena 6onsalu in the a%ount of Fift( thousan pesos P

?),))).))- each or forthe total a%ount of One hunre fift( thousan pesos P$?),))).))-G

&. Te%perate a%ages in the a%ount of T#ent(five Thousan Pesos P&?,))).))-each for the eath of !%ilia 6onsalu, 7eonaro 6onsalu Sr., an /lena 6onsalucollectivel( the 6onsalus- or for the total a%ount of Sevent(five thousan pesosP0?,))).))-G

5. 6oral a%ages in the a%ount of Fift( Thousan Pesos P?),))).))- each for theeath of the 6onsalus or for a total a%ount of One =unre Fift( Thousan PesosP$?),))).))-G

1. !>e%plar( a%ages of Fort( Thousan Pesos P1),))).))-.

No pronounce%ent as to costs.

SO ORD!R!D.5&

Issues

+s a result of the averse ;ug%ent, Oscar 'r. file this Petition for Revie# on "ertiorari allegingthat the "+ erre in

$. > > > basing its conclusions an finings on speculations, sur%ises an con;ecturesG%isapprehension of facts #hich are in conflict #ith the finings of the trial courtG

&. > > > eclaring a uestion of substance not in accor #ith la# an #ith theapplicable ecisions of the Supre%e "ourtG

5. > > > eparting fro% the regular course of the ;uicial proceeings in the isposition

of the appeal an Hin going be(on the issues of the case.55

Oscar 'r. points out that the "+ faile to consier the RT"3s ruling in its 'une &$, &))) Orer#hich #as in accor #ith +rticle &$@) of the "ivil "oe, i.e., that the tort co%%itte b( ane%plo(ee shoul have been one J#ithin the scope of his assigne tas:s3 for an e%plo(er to behel liable uner culpa auiliana. =o#ever, the "+ never touche upon this %atter even if it #as

glaring that +llan3s riving the sub;ect vehicle #as not #ithin the scope of his previous

e%plo(%ent as conuctor. 6oreover, Oscar 'r. insists that his ;eep #as stolen an stresses thatthe liabilit( of a registere o#ner of a vehicle as to thir persons, as #ell as the octrine of resipsa louitur, shoul not appl( to hi%. =e asserts that although +llan an his co%panions #erenot foun to have co%%itte the cri%e of carnapping be(on reasonable oubt, it #asnevertheless establishe that the ;eep #as illicitl( ta:en b( the% fro% a #ell secure area. Thisis consiering that the vehicle #as running #ithout its healights on at the ti%e of the accient, aproof that it #as starte #ithout the ignition :e(.

Our Ruling

Petitioner3s o#n evience casts oubt on his clai% that his ;eep #as stolen b( +llan an hisallege cohorts. Negligence is presu%e uner the octrine of res ipsa louitur.

Oscar 'r.3s core efense to release hi% fro% responsibilit( for the eath of the 6onsalus is thathis ;eep #as stolen. =e highlights that the unauthoriCe ta:ing of the ;eep fro% the par:ing area#as inee carrie out b( the clanestine an concerte efforts of +llan an his fiveco%panions, not#ithstaning the obstacles surrouning the par:ing area an the #eight of the

;eep.

Notabl(, the carnapping case file against +llan an his group #as alrea( is%isse b( theRT" for insufficienc( of evience. But even in this civil case an as correctl( conclue b( the"+, the evientiar( stanar of preponerance of evience reuire #as li:e#ise not %et to

support Oscar 'r.3s clai% that his ;eep #as unla#full( ta:en.

T#o of +llan3s coaccuse in the carnapping case, 'e%ar an Ben;a%in, eclare before thepolice that #hen +llan invite the% to rie #ith hi%, he #as alrea( riving the ;eep

)1. K On that night, on or about $$5) o3cloc: on Dece%ber 5$, $44&, #here #ere(ouL

+ I #ent to the isco near Hthe Public 6ar:etH, So%inot, 8a%boanga el Sur.

)?. K Ehile (ou #ere in isco place, o (ou :no# if there #as an incient HthathappeneL

+ No sir but #hen I #as in the isco place, at about 55) at a#n %ore or lessH,'anuar( $, $445, +llan 6aglasang arrive riving the ;eep an he invite %e to rie

together #ith Ben;a%in +nu;ar, Dioscoro Sol, +rniel ReCaa an 'oven Orot.51

> > > >

)1. K On that night, on or about 4)) o3cloc: in the evening %ore or less onDece%ber 5$, $44&, #here #ere (ouL

+ I #ent to the isco at Hthe Public 6ar:etH, So%inot, 8a%boanga el Sur.

)?. K Ehile (ou #ere in the isco place, o (ou :no# if there #as an incient HthathappeneL

3 thil lozada
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt34


4/6

Torts and Damages+ No, sir, but #hen I #as in the isco place, at about 55) at a#n %ore or lessH,'anuar( $, $445, +llan 6aglasang arriveH riving the ;eep an he invite %e to rie

together #ith 'e%ar +larcon, Dioscoro Sol, +rniel RiCaa an 'oven Orot. 5?

There #ere si> accuse in the carnapping case. If 'e%ar an Ben;a%in #ere fetche b( +llan#ho #as riving the ;eep, this #oul %ean that onl( three %en pushe the ;eep contrar( toRorigo3s testi%on( in "ri%inal "ase No. 45$)5@) that it has to be pushe b( at least fivepeople so that it coul start #ithout the ignition :e(.

On irect e>a%ination,5*Oscar 'r. #as as:e as to #hat Rorigo, his river #ho ha infor%e

hi% about the accient on 'anuar( $, $445 at aroun 0)) a.%., turne over to hi% after theincient, viz

K Ehen Rorigo 6aglasang, (our river infor%e (ou about the accient, #hat ihe carr( #ith hi% if an( an turne over to (ouL

+ The OR Official Receipt- an the "R "ertificate of Registration- Sir.

K =o# about the :e( of the vehicleL

+ It #as not turne over, Sir.50

+ssu%ing arguendothat +llan stole the ;eep b( having the sa%e pushe b( a group, the ignition:e( shoul then be #ith Rorigo as he #as entruste #ith the ;eep3s possession. Thus, at theti%e Rorigo face his e%plo(er hours after the incient, it is reasonable to e>pect that theriver shoul have also returne the :e( to the operator together #ith the Official Receipt an"ertificate of Registration. Notabl(, Rorigo i not o so an instea, the :e( #as al legel(hane over to the police for reasons une>plaine an not available fro% the recors.Interestingl(, Oscar 'r. never presente Rorigo as his #itness. Neither #as he able to attest oncrosse>a%ination that +llan reall( stole the ;eep b( pushing or that the :e( #as hane over tohi% b( Rorigo

K On Dece%ber 5$, $44&, (ou i not :no# that it #as Rorigo 6aglasang #ho gavethe :e( to +llan 6aglasang. Is that correctL

+ I #as not there. So, I o not :no# but he ha an affiavit to sho# that he turne itover to the police.

K Ehat I #as as:ing (ou is that, Hon the night of Dece%ber 5$, $44&, #hen it #asriven b( +llan 6aglasang, (ou i not :no# that the :e( #as voluntaril( given b(Rorigo 6aglasang to +llan 6aglasangL

+ I #as not there.

K So, (ou coul not testif( on that, is that correctL

+ 2es Sir, I #as not there.5@

Further%ore, Oscar 'r. ac:no#lege the is%issal of the carnapping case, thus

K No#, there #as a case file against +llan 6aglasang an Hhis > > > coaccuse > >> Hna%el( Ben;a%in +no;ar, Dioscoro Sol, 'oven Orot, H'e%ar +Carcon an H+rnielRiCaa, for carnapping. Is that correctL

+ 2es Sir.

K That case #as file b( (ou because (ou allege that on Dece%ber 5$, $44&, (our;eep #as carnappe b( +llan 6aglasang an his coaccuse, the sai %entione, isthat correctL

+ 2es Sir.

K 2ou testifie on the case in +urora, is that correctL

+ 2es, Sir.

K +n (ou coul #ell re%e%ber that this representation is the counsel of the coaccuse of +llan 6aglasang, is that correctL

+ 2es Sir.

K +n that case for carnapping #as is%isse, is that correctL

+ 2es Sir.

K !ven the case of +llan 6aglasang, #as also is%isse, is that correct

+ 2es Sir.

K Because there #as no sufficient evience to establish that the ;eep #as carnappe,is that correctL

+ 2es Sir.54

Ehile Oscar 'r. highlights that the healights #ere not on to support his clai% that his ;eep #asstolen, this circu%stance b( itself #ill not prove that it reall( #as stolen. The reason #h( thehealights #ere not on at the ti%e of the accient #as not sufficientl( establishe uring the trial.Besies, the fact that the healights #ere not on cannot be e>clusivel( attribute to the lac: ofignition :e( in starting the ;eep as there %a( be other possibilities such as electrical proble%s,bro:en healights, or that the( #ere si%pl( turne off.

=ence, sansthe testi%on( of #itnesses an other relevant evience to support the efense ofunauthoriCe ta:ing, #e cannot subscribe to Oscar 'r.3s clai% that his ;eep #as stolen. Theevience on recor brings forth %ore uestions than clearcut ans#ers.

4 thil lozada
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt39


5/6

Torts and DamagesOscar 'r. alleges that the presu%ption of negligence uner the octrine of res ipsa louiturliterall(, the thing spea:s for itself- shoul not have been applie because he #as vigilant insecuring his vehicle. =e clai%s that the ;eep #as par:e in a #ell secure area not re%ote to the#atchful senses of its river Rorigo.

9ner the octrine of res ipsa loquitur, AH#here the thing that cause the in;ur( co%plaine of issho#n to be uner the %anage%ent of the efenant or his servantsG an the accient, in theorinar( course of things, #oul not happen if those #ho ha %anage%ent or control useproper care, it affors reasonable evience in the absence of a sufficient, reasonable an

logical e>planation b( efenant that the accient arose fro% or #as cause b( theefenant3s #ant of care.A1)Res ipsa louitur is A%erel( evientiar(, a %oe of proof, or a %ere

proceural convenience, since it furnishes a substitute for, an relieves a plaintiff of, the buren

of proucing a specific proof of negligence.A1$It ArecogniCes that parties %a( establish pri%a

facie negligence #ithout irect proof, thus, it allo#s the principle to substitute for specific proof ofnegligence. It per%its the plaintiff to present along #ith proof of the accient, enough of theattening circu%stances to invo:e the octrine, create an inference or presu%ption ofnegligence an thereb( place on the efenant the buren of proving that there #as no

negligence on his part.A1&The octrine is base partl( on Athe theor( that the efenant in

charge of the instru%entalit( #hich causes the in;ur( either :no#s the cause of the accient orhas the best opportunit( of ascertaining it #hile the plaintiff has no such :no#lege, an is

therefore co%pelle to allege negligence in general ter%s.A 15

The reuisites of the octrine of res ipsa louitur as establishe b( ;urispruence are as follo#s

$- the accient is of a :in #hich oes not orinaril( occur unless so%eone isnegligentG

&- the cause of the in;ur( #as uner the e>clusive control of the person in charge an

5- the in;ur( suffere %ust not have been ue to an( voluntar( action or contribution

on the part of the person in;ure.11

The above reuisites are all present in this case. First, no person ;ust #al:ing along the roa#oul suenl( be sies#ipe an run over b( an onrushing vehicle unless the one in chargeof the sai vehicle ha been negligent. Secon, the ;eep #hich cause the in;ur( #as uner thee>clusive control of Oscar 'r. as its o#ner. Ehen Oscar 'r. entruste the ignition :e( to Rorigo,he ha the po#er to instruct hi% #ith regar to the specific restrictions of the ;eep3s use,incluing #ho or #ho %a( not rive it. +s he is a#are that the ;eep %a( run #ithout the ignition:e(, he also has the responsibilit( to par: it safel( an securel( an to instruct his river Rorigoto observe the sa%e precaution. 7astl(, there #as no sho#ing that the eath of the victi%s #asue to an( voluntar( action or contribution on their part.

The afore%entione reuisites having been %et, there no# arises a presu%ption of negligenceagainst Oscar 'r. #hich he coul have overco%e b( evience that he e>ercise ue care aniligence in preventing strangers fro% using his ;eep. 9nfortunatel(, he faile to o so.

Ehat this "ourt instea fins #orth( of creence is the "+3s conclusion that Oscar 'r. gave hisi%plie per%ission for +llan to use the ;eep. This is in vie# of Oscar 'r.3s failure to provie soliproof that he ensure that the par:ing area is #ell secure an that he ha e>pressl( i%poserestrictions as to the use of the ;eep #hen he en truste the sa%e to his river Rorigo. +s

fittingl( inferre b( the "+, the ;eep coul have been enorse to +llan b( his brother Rorigosince as alrea( %entione, Oscar 'r. i not give Rorigo an( specific an strict instructions on%atters regaring its use. Rorigo therefore is ee%e to have been given the absoluteiscretion as to the vehicle3s operation, incluing the iscretion to allo# his brother +llan to useit.

The operator on recor of a vehicle is pri%aril( responsible to thir persons for the eaths orin;uries conseuent to its operation, regarless of #hether the e%plo(ee rove the registereo#ner3s vehicle in connection #ith his e%plo(%ent.

Eithout isputing the factual fining of the "+ that +llan #as still his

e%plo(ee at the ti%e of the accient, a fining #hich #e see no reason to isturb, Oscar 'r.contens that +llan rove the ;eep in his private capacit( an thus, an e%plo(er3s vicariousliabilit( for the e%plo(ee3s fault uner +rticle &$@) of the "ivil "oe cannot appl( to hi%.

The contention is no longer novel. In +guilar Sr. v. "o%%ercial Savings Ban:,1?the car of

therein responent ban: cause the eath of "onrao +guilar, 'r. #hile being riven b( itsassistant vice presient. Despite +rticle &$@), #e still hel the ban: liable for a%ages for theaccient as sai provision shoul efer to the settle octrine concerning accients involvingregistere %otor vehicles, i.e., that the registere o#ner of an( vehicle, even if not use forpublic service, #oul pri%aril( be responsible to the public or to thir persons for in;uries cause

the latter #hile the vehicle #as being riven on the high#a(s or streets.1*

Ee have alrea(ratiocinate that

The %ain ai% of %otor vehicle registration is to ientif( the o#ner so that if an( accienthappens, or that an( a%age or in;ur( is cause b( the vehicle on the public high#a(s,responsibilit( therefor can be fi>e on a efinite iniviual, the registere o#ner. Instances arenu%erous #here vehicles running on public high#a(s cause accients or in;uries topeestrians or other vehicles #ithout positive ientification of the o#ner or rivers, or #ith ver(scant %eans of ientification. It is to forestall these circu%stances, so inconvenient or pre;uicialto the public, that the %otor vehicle registration is pri%aril( oraine, in the interest of the

eter%ination of persons responsible for a%ages or in;uries cause on public high#a(s. 10

+bsent the circu%stance of unauthoriCe use1@or that the sub;ect vehicle #as stolen14#hich are

vali efenses available to a registere o#ner, Oscar 'r. cannot escape liabilit( for uasielict

resulting fro% his ;eep3s use.1wphi1

+ll tol an consiering that the a%ounts of a%ages a#are are in accorance #ith prevailing;urispruence, the "ourt concurs #ith the finings of the "+ an sustains the a#ars %ae. In

aition, pursuant to !astern Shipping 7ines, Inc. v. "ourt of +ppeals,?)an interest of si> percent

*M- per annu% on the a%ounts a#are shall be i%pose, co%pute fro% the ti%e the;ug%ent of the RT" is renere on +pril $0, &))) an t#elve percent $&M- per annu% on sucha%ount upon finalit( of this Decision until the pa(%ent thereof.

E=!R!FOR!, pre%ises consiere, the instant petition is D!NI!D. The Decision ate 'ul($$, &))* of the "ourt of +ppeals in "+/.R. "V No. *00*1 is hereb( +FFIR6!D #ith further6ODIFI"+TION that an interest of si> percent *M- per annu% on the a%ounts a#are shallbe i%pose, co%pute fro% the ti%e the ;ug%ent of the Regional Trial "ourt, Branch &5,

5 thil lozada
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173870_2012.html#fnt50


6/6

Torts and Damages6olave, 8a%boanga el Sur is renere on +pril $0, &))) an t#elve percent $&M- per annu%on such a%ount upon finalit( of this Decision until the pa(%ent thereof.

SO ORD!R!D.

6 thil lozada

DEL CARMEN V. BACOY.doc

Documents

Transcript of DEL CARMEN V. BACOY.doc