Case Digest: McKee vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 68102, July 16, 1992

Torts and Damages

Davide, Jr., J.:

Recit Ver:

• January 8, 1977.

• A head-on collision occurred on Pulong Pulo Bridge, MacArthur Highway, Pampanga, between a cargo truck and a Ford Escort. 

• The truck, owned by Jaime Tayag and Rosalinda Manalo and driven by Ruben Galang, collided with a Ford Escort driven by Jose Koh. 

• The crash resulted in the deaths of Jose Koh, Kim Koh McKee, and Loida Bondoc, and caused injuries to George Koh McKee, Christopher Koh McKee, and Araceli Koh McKee. 

• The truck, carrying 10,000 kilos of rice, was traveling south, while the car was heading north. 

• Just before the accident, two boys ran into the road, prompting Koh to swerve left, into the truck’s lane, to avoid hitting them, but before he could return to his lane, the collision occurred.

• The Court ruled that although a criminal conviction for reckless imprudence had been rendered against the truck driver, Galang, this was separate from the civil action under consideration.

• The independence of the civil case is emphasized because the private respondents were not parties to the criminal case.

• On the issue of whether Koh’s actions constituted negligence leading to the accident, the Court found that Koh’s swerve was a reasonable response to the sudden appearance of the two boys, thus ruling out his negligence. 

• The truck driver’s failure to slow down or take evasive action was determined to be the proximate cause of the collision.

• The Court applied the doctrine of last clear chance, which holds that even if Koh had been negligent, the truck driver still had the final opportunity to avoid the accident. Since the truck driver failed to take the necessary precautions, his negligence was deemed the proximate cause of the accident. 

• As employers of the truck driver, Tayag and Manalo were found vicariously liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code for damages resulting from the accident.

• Doctrines: 

• Emergency rule

• One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence.

• Last clear chance 

• The contributory negligence of the party injured will not defeat the claim for damages if it is shown that the defendant might, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the injured party. 

Facts: 

• On January 8, 1977, between nine and ten in the morning, a head-on collision occurred on Pulong Pulo Bridge, MacArthur Highway, Pampanga, between a cargo truck and a Ford Escort.

• The cargo truck, owned by Jaime Tayag and Rosalinda Manalo and driven by Ruben Galang, collided with a Ford Escort driven by Jose Koh.

• The collision resulted in the deaths of Jose Koh, Kim Koh McKee, and Loida Bondoc (the babysitter), and caused injuries to George Koh McKee, Christopher Koh McKee, and Araceli Koh McKee, who were all passengers in the Ford Escort.

• The cargo truck was traveling south from Angeles City to San Fernando, Pampanga, loaded with 200 cavans of rice weighing about 10,000 kilos, while the Ford Escort was heading north from San Fernando to Angeles City.

• Just before the accident, two boys darted into the road,  hesitating on whether to cross or turn back.

• Jose Koh, the driver of the car, honked the horn, swerved left into the truck’s lane, turned on the headlights, applied the brakes, and tried to return to his lane.

• Before Koh could return to his lane, the car collided with the truck in the truck's lane on the bridge.

• Following the accident, the police conducted an investigation and prepared a sketch showing the positions of the vehicles. 

• The investigation revealed that the truck was partially in its lane, while the Ford Escort was in the opposite lane at the time of the crash. 

• The bridge was 60 "footsteps" long and 14 "footsteps" wide, with concrete railings 3 feet high.

• The truck's right rear was 2 "footsteps" from the right sidewalk, and its left front was at the center line; the car's front was smashed against the truck's bumper.

• Skid marks from the truck’s front tires measured 9 and 5 "footsteps," while its rear tires produced no skid marks,  suggesting braking before the crash.

• The truck driver, Galang, admitted traveling at 48 kilometers per hour.

• Two civil cases (Civil Case Nos. 4477 and 4478) were filed by the families of the victims, seeking damages for deaths, injuries, and property loss.

• A criminal case (Criminal Case No. 3751) was also filed against Galang for "Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Multiple Homicide and Physical Injuries."

• Private respondents filed counterclaims in the civil cases, asserting that Jose Koh's negligence caused the collision, and sought their own damages.

Criminal Case:

• CFI-Pampanga:

• Found Ruben Galang guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide, injuries, and property damage.

• Galang was sentenced to 6 months of arresto mayor to 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day of prision correccional.

• Galang was also ordered to pay the heirs of Loida Bondoc and Jose Koh:

• P12,000 for death indemnity, 

• P2,000 for funeral expenses, 

• P20,000 for loss of income, and 

• P53,910.95 for the value of Jose Koh's car.

• CA:

• Affirmed the conviction.

Civil Case:

• CFI-Pampanga:

• Denied the private respondents' motions to dismiss and consolidated the civil cases, awarding:

• P100,000 in moral and exemplary damages, 

• P15,000 in attorney's fees, and 

• P2,000 in litigation expenses to the private respondents.

• IAC: 

• 1983: 

• Reversed the decision in the civil cases and awarded compensation to the plaintiffs.

• The court held that Ruben Galang’s reckless imprudence caused the accident.

• The court also presumed negligence on the part of Galang's employers, as they failed to demonstrate that they exercised proper diligence in selecting and supervising him.

• 1984:

• Affirmed the trial court's ruling, reinstating the original dismissal of the civil cases.

Issue:

Whether the court committed a serious error by reversing its decision based solely on a mere "presumption," completely disregarding the driver's admissions and confessions, which were the proximate cause of the accident. YES

Held:

There is merit in the petition. Before We take on the main task of dissecting the arguments and counter-arguments, some observations on the procedural vicissitudes of these cases are in order.

Civil Cases Nos. 4477 and 4478, which were for the recovery of civil liability arising from a quasi-delict under Article 2176 in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code, were filed ahead of Criminal Case No. 3751. Civil Case No. 4478 was eventually consolidated with Civil Case No. 4477 for joint trial in Branch III of the trial court. The records do not indicate any attempt on the part of the parties, and it may therefore be reasonably concluded that none was made, to consolidate Criminal Case No. 3751 with the civil cases, or vice-versa. The parties may have then believed, and understandably so, since by then no specific provision of law or ruling of this Court expressly allowed such a consolidation, that an independent civil action, authorized under Article 33 in relation to Article 2177 of the Civil Code, such as the civil cases in this case, cannot be consolidated with the criminal case. Indeed, such consolidation could have been farthest from their minds as Article 33 itself expressly provides that the "civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence." Be that as it may, there was then no legal impediment against such consolidation. Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court, which seeks to avoid a multiplicity of suits, guard against oppression and abuse, prevent delays, clear congested dockets to simplify the work of the trial court, or in short, attain justice with the least expense to the parties litigants, would have easily sustained a consolidation, thereby preventing the unseeming, if no ludicrous, spectacle of two (2) judges appreciating, according to their respective orientation, perception and perhaps even prejudice, the same facts differently, and thereafter rendering conflicting decisions. 

Such was what happened in this case. It should not, hopefully, happen anymore. In the recent case of Cojuangco vs. Court or Appeals, this Court held that the present provisions of Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Court allow a consolidation of an independent civil action for the recovery of civil liability authorized under Articles 32, 33, 34 or 2176 of the Civil Code with the criminal action subject, however, to the condition that no final judgment has been rendered in that criminal case.

Let it be stressed, however, that the judgment in Criminal Case No. 3751 finding Galang guilty of reckless imprudence, although already final by virtue of the denial by no less than this Court of his last attempt to set aside the respondent Court's affirmance of the verdict of conviction, has no relevance or importance to this case.

As We held in Dionisio vs. Alvendia, the responsibility arising from fault or negligence in a quasi-delict is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. And, as more concretely stated in the concurring opinion of Justice J.B.L. Reyes, "in the case of independent civil actions under the new Civil Code, the result of the criminal case, whether acquittal or conviction, would be entirely irrelevant to the civil action." 

In Salta vs. De Veyra and PNB vs. Purisima, this Court stated:

. . . It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that the civil actions mentioned in Article 33, permitted in the same manner to be filed separately from the criminal case, may proceed similarly regardless of the result of the criminal case.

Indeed, when the law has allowed a civil case related to a criminal case, to be filed separately and to proceed independently even during the pendency of the latter case, the intention is patent to make the court's disposition of the criminal case of no effect whatsoever on the separate civil case. This must be so because the offenses specified in Article 33 are of such a nature, unlike other offenses not mentioned, that they may be made the subject of a separate civil action because of the distinct separability of their respective juridical cause or basis of action . . . .

What remains to be the most important consideration as to why the decision in the criminal case should not be considered in this appeal is the fact that private respondents were not parties therein. It would have been entirely different if the petitioners' cause of action was for damages arising from a delict, in which case private respondents' liability could only be subsidiary pursuant to Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. In the absence of any collusion, the judgment of conviction in the criminal case against Galang would have been conclusive in the civil cases for the subsidiary liability of the private respondents. 

And now to the merits of the petition.

It is readily apparent from the pleadings that the principal issue raised in this petition is whether or not respondent Court's findings in its challenged resolution are supported by evidence or are based on mere speculations, conjectures and presumptions.

The principle is well-established that this Court is not a trier of facts. Therefore, in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised. The resolution of factual issues is the function of the lower courts whose findings on these matters are received with respect and are, as a rule, binding on this Court. 

The foregoing rule, however, is not without exceptions. Findings of facts of the trial courts and the Court of Appeals may be set aside when such findings are not supported by the evidence or when the trial court failed to consider the material facts which would have led to a conclusion different from what was stated in its judgment. The same is true where the appellate court's conclusions are grounded entirely on conjectures, speculations and surmises or where the conclusions of the lower courts are based on a misapprehension of facts. 

It is at once obvious to this Court that the instant case qualifies as one of the aforementioned exceptions as the findings and conclusions of the trial court and the respondent Court in its challenged resolution are not supported by the evidence, are based on an misapprehension of facts and the inferences made therefrom are manifestly mistaken. The respondent Court's decision of 29 November 1983 makes the correct findings of fact.

In the assailed resolution, the respondent Court held that the fact that the car improperly invaded the lane of the truck and that the collision occurred in said lane gave rise to the presumption that the driver of the car, Jose Koh, was negligent. 

On the basis of this presumed negligence, the appellate court immediately concluded that it was Jose Koh's negligence that was the immediate and proximate cause of the collision. This is an unwarranted deduction as the evidence for the petitioners convincingly shows that the car swerved into the truck's lane because as it approached the southern end of the bridge, two (2) boys darted across the road from the right sidewalk into the lane of the car. As testified to by petitioner Araceli Koh McKee:

Q What happened after that, as you approached the bridge?

A When we were approaching the bridge, two (2) boys tried to cross the right lane on the right side of the highway going to San Fernando. My father, who is (sic) the driver of the car tried to avoid the two (2) boys who were crossing, he blew his horn and swerved to the left to avoid hitting the two (2) boys. We noticed the truck, he switched on the headlights to warn the truck driver, to slow down to give us the right of way to come back to our right lane.

Q Did the truck slow down?

A No sir, it did not, just (sic) continued on its way.

Q What happened after that?

A After avoiding the two (2) boys, the car tried to go back to the right lane since the truck is (sic) coming, my father stepped on the brakes and all what (sic) I heard is the sound of impact (sic), sir. 

Her credibility and testimony remained intact even during cross examination. Jose Koh's entry into the lane of the truck was necessary in order to avoid what was, in his mind at that time, a greater peril — death or injury to the two (2) boys. Such act can hardly be classified as negligent.

Negligence was defined and described by this Court in Layugan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, thus:

. . . Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do (Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 930), or as Judge Cooley defines it, "(T)he failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury." (Cooley on Torts, Fourth Edition, vol. 3, 265)

In Picart vs. Smith (37 Phil 809, 813), decided more than seventy years ago but still a sound rule, (W)e held:

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 ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation?) If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The law here in effect adopts the standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet paterfamilias of the Roman

law. . . .

In Corliss vs. Manila Railroad Company, We held:

. . . Negligence is want of the care required by the circumstances. It is a relative or comparative, not an absolute, term and its application depends upon the situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably require. Where the danger is great, a high degree of care is necessary, and the failure to observe it is a want of ordinary care under the circumstances. (citing Ahern v. Oregon Telephone Co., 35 Pac. 549 (1894).

On the basis of the foregoing definition, the test of negligence and the facts obtaining in this case, it is manifest that no negligence could be imputed to Jose Koh. Any reasonable and ordinary prudent man would have tried to avoid running over the two boys by swerving the car away from where they were even if this would mean entering the opposite lane. Avoiding such immediate peril would be the natural course to take particularly where the vehicle in the opposite lane would be several meters away and could very well slow down, move to the side of the road and give way to the oncoming car. Moreover, under what is known as the emergency rule, "one who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence." 

Considering the sudden intrusion of the two (2) boys into the lane of the car, We find that Jose Koh adopted the best means possible in the given situation to avoid hitting them. Applying the above test, therefore, it is clear that he was not guilty of negligence.

In any case, assuming, arguendo that Jose Koh is negligent, it cannot be said that his negligence was the proximate cause of the collision. Proximate cause has been defined as:

. . . that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. And more comprehensively, the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom. 

Applying the above definition, although it may be said that the act of Jose Koh, if at all negligent, was the initial act in the chain of events, it cannot be said that the same caused the eventual injuries and deaths because of the occurrence of a sufficient intervening event, the negligent act of the truck driver, which was the actual cause of the tragedy. The entry of the car into the lane of the truck would not have resulted in the collision had the latter heeded the emergency signals given by the former to slow down and give the car an opportunity to go back into its proper lane. 

Instead of slowing down and swerving to the far right of the road, which was the proper precautionary measure under the given circumstances, the truck driver continued at full speed towards the car. The truck driver's negligence becomes more apparent in view of the fact that the road is 7.50 meters wide while the car measures 1.598 meters and the truck, 2.286 meters, in width. This would mean that both car and truck could pass side by side with a clearance of 3.661 meters to spare. Furthermore, the bridge has a level sidewalk which could have partially accommodated the truck. Any reasonable man finding himself in the given situation would have tried to avoid the car instead of meeting it head-on.

The truck driver's negligence is apparent in the records. He himself said that his truck was running at 30 miles (48 kilometers) per hour along the bridge while the maximum speed allowed by law on a bridge 52 is only 30 kilometers per hour. 

Under Article 2185 of the Civil Code, a person driving a vehicle is presumed negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. We cannot give credence to private respondents' claim that there was an error in the translation by the investigating officer of the truck driver's response in Pampanga as to whether the speed cited was in kilometers per hour or miles per hour. The law presumes that official duty has been regularly performed; unless there is proof to the contrary, this presumption holds. In the instant case, private respondents' claim is based on mere conjecture.

The truck driver's negligence was likewise duly established through the earlier quoted testimony of petitioner Araceli Koh McKee which was duly corroborated by the testimony of Eugenio Tanhueco, an impartial eyewitness to the mishap.

Araceli Koh McKee testified further, thus:

x x x           x x x          x x x

Q Mrs. how did you know that the truck driven by the herein accused, Ruben Galang did not reduce its speed before the actual impact of collision as you narrated in this Exhibit "1," how did you know?

A It just kept on coming, sir. If only he reduced his speed, we could have got (sic) back to our right lane on side (sic) of the highway, sir. (tsn, pp. 33-34, July 22, 1977) or (Exhibit; "O" in these Civil Cases) (pp. 30-31, Appellants' Brief)54

while Eugenio Tanhueco testified thus:

Q When you saw the truck, how was it moving?

A It was moving 50 to 60 kilometers per hour, sir.

Q Immediately after you saw this truck, do you know what happened?

A I saw the truck and a car collided (sic), sir, and I went to the place to help the victims. (tsn. 28, April 19, 1979)

x x x           x x x          x x x

Q From the time you saw the truck to the time of the impact, will you tell us if the said truck ever stopped?

A I saw it stopped (sic) when it has (sic) already collided with the car and it was already motionless. (tsn. 31, April 19, 1979; Emphasis Supplied). (p. 27, Appellants' Brief). 

Clearly, therefore, it was the truck driver's subsequent negligence in failing to take the proper measures and degree of care necessary to avoid the collision which was the proximate cause of the resulting accident.

Even if Jose Koh was indeed negligent, the doctrine of last clear chance finds application here. Last clear chance is a doctrine in the law of torts which states that the contributory negligence of the party injured will not defeat the claim for damages if it is shown that the defendant might, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the injured party. In such cases, the person who had the last clear chance to avoid the mishap is considered in law solely responsible for the consequences thereof.

In Bustamante vs. Court of Appeals, We held:

The respondent court adopted the doctrine of "last clear chance." The doctrine, stated broadly, is that the negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of the defendant where it appears that the defendant, by exercising reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided injurious consequences to the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff's negligence. In other words, the doctrine of last clear chance means that even though a person's own acts may have placed him in a position of peril, and an injury results, the injured person is entitled to recovery (sic). As the doctrine is usually stated, a person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent or that of a third person imputed to the opponent is considered in law solely responsible for the consequences of the accident. (Sangco, Torts and Damages, 4th Ed., 1986, p. 165).

The practical import of the doctrine is that a negligent defendant is held liable to a negligent plaintiff, or even to a plaintiff who has been grossly negligent in placing himself in peril, if he, aware of the plaintiff's peril, or according to some authorities, should have been aware of it in the reasonable exercise of due care, had in fact an opportunity later than that of the plaintiff to avoid an accident (57 Am. Jur., 2d, pp. 798-799).

In Pantranco North Express, Inc., vs. Baesa, We ruled:

The doctrine of last clear chance was defined by this Court in the case of Ong v. Metropolitan Water District, 104 Phil. 397 (1958), in this wise:

The doctrine of the last clear chance simply, means that the negligence of a claimant does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of defendant where it appears that the latter, by exercising reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided injurious consequences to claimant notwithstanding his negligence.

The doctrine applies only in a situation where the plaintiff was guilty of prior or antecedent negligence but the defendant, who had the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so, is made liable for all the consequences of the accident notwithstanding the prior negligence of the plaintiff [Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil. 809 (1918); Glan People's Lumber and Hardware, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, Cecilia Alferez Vda. de Calibo, et al., G.R. No. 70493, May, 18, 1989]. The subsequent negligence of the defendant in failing to exercise ordinary care to avoid injury to plaintiff becomes the immediate or proximate cause of the accident which intervenes between the accident and the more remote negligence of the plaintiff, thus making the defendant liable to the plaintiff [Picart v. Smith, supra].

Generally, the last clear chance doctrine is invoked for the purpose of making a defendant liable to a plaintiff who was guilty of prior or antecedent negligence, although it may also be raised as a defense to defeat claim (sic) for damages.

Applying the foregoing doctrine, it is not difficult to rule, as We now rule, that it was the truck driver's negligence in failing to exert ordinary care to avoid the collision which was, in law, the proximate cause of the collision. 

As employers of the truck driver, the private respondents are, under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, directly and primarily liable for the resulting damages. The presumption that they are negligent flows from the negligence of their employee. That presumption, however, is only juris tantum, not juris et de jure. Their only possible defense is that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. Article 2180 reads as follows:

The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

xxx xxx xxx

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.

xxx xxx xxx

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.

The diligence of a good father referred to means the diligence in the selection and supervision of employees. The answers of the private respondents in Civil Cases Nos. 4477 and 4478 did not interpose this defense. Neither did they attempt to prove it.

The respondent Court was then correct in its Decision of 29 November 1983 in reversing the decision of the trial court which dismissed Civil Cases Nos. 4477 and 4478. Its assailed Resolution of 3 April 1984 finds no sufficient legal and factual moorings.

In the light of recent decisions of this Court, the indemnity for death must, however, be increased from P12,000.00 to P50,000.00.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolution of the respondent Court of 3 April 1984 is SET ASIDE while its Decision of 29 November 1983 in C.A.-G.R. CV Nos. 69040-41 is REINSTATED, subject to the modification that the indemnity for death is increased from P12,000.00 to P50,000.00 each for the death of Jose Koh and Kim Koh McKee.

Costs against private respondents.

SO ORDERED.