1. A passenger bus driven by Suelto suddenly swerved to the right and struck the terrace of a commercial apartment owned by Valdellon, causing damage that required the terrace to be demolished for safety.
2. Valdellon filed criminal and civil complaints against Suelto and the bus company. Suelto claimed the accident occurred because he had to swerve to avoid a jeepney, but failed to prove this.
3. The court found Suelto guilty of reckless imprudence, as the damage could only have been caused by a speeding bus, and Suelto's claim was not substantiated by evidence.
1. A passenger bus driven by Suelto suddenly swerved to the right and struck the terrace of a commercial apartment owned by Valdellon, causing damage that required the terrace to be demolished for safety.
2. Valdellon filed criminal and civil complaints against Suelto and the bus company. Suelto claimed the accident occurred because he had to swerve to avoid a jeepney, but failed to prove this.
3. The court found Suelto guilty of reckless imprudence, as the damage could only have been caused by a speeding bus, and Suelto's claim was not substantiated by evidence.
Original Description:
Torts Law Case Digest on Marikina Autoline vs. People.
Original Title
Marikina Auto Line vs. People of the Philippines.docx
1. A passenger bus driven by Suelto suddenly swerved to the right and struck the terrace of a commercial apartment owned by Valdellon, causing damage that required the terrace to be demolished for safety.
2. Valdellon filed criminal and civil complaints against Suelto and the bus company. Suelto claimed the accident occurred because he had to swerve to avoid a jeepney, but failed to prove this.
3. The court found Suelto guilty of reckless imprudence, as the damage could only have been caused by a speeding bus, and Suelto's claim was not substantiated by evidence.
1. A passenger bus driven by Suelto suddenly swerved to the right and struck the terrace of a commercial apartment owned by Valdellon, causing damage that required the terrace to be demolished for safety.
2. Valdellon filed criminal and civil complaints against Suelto and the bus company. Suelto claimed the accident occurred because he had to swerve to avoid a jeepney, but failed to prove this.
3. The court found Suelto guilty of reckless imprudence, as the damage could only have been caused by a speeding bus, and Suelto's claim was not substantiated by evidence.
FACTS: 1. Erlinda V. Valdellon is the owner of a two-door commercial apartment located at No. 31 Kamias Road, Quezon City. The Marikina Auto Line Transport Corporation (MALTC) is the owner-operator of a passenger bus, its employee, was assigned as the regular driver of the bus. 2. At around 2:00 p.m. on October 3, 1992, Suelto was driving the passenger bus along Kamias Road, Kamuning, Quezon City, going towards EDSA. The bus suddenly swerved to the right and struck the terrace of the commercial apartment owned by Valdellon. Upon Valdellons request, the court ordered Sergio Pontiveros, the Senior Building Inspection Officer of the City Engineers Office, to inspect the damaged terrace. 3. He recommended that since the structural members made of concrete had been displaced, the terrace would have to be demolished "to keep its monolithicness, and to insure the safety and stability of the building." 4. In a letter addressed to the bus company and Suelto, Valdellon demanded payment of P148,440.00, within 10 days from receipt thereof, to cover the cost of the damage to the terrace. he bus company and Suelto offered a P30,000.00 settlement which Valdellon refused. 5. Valdellon filed a criminal complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property against Suelto. After the requisite preliminary investigation, an Information was filed with the RTC of Quezon City. 6. Valdellon also filed a separate civil complaint against Suelto and the bus company for damages. She prayed that after due proceedings, judgment be rendered in her favor. 7. ISSUE(S): 1. W/N Suelto is guilty of reckless imprudence which resulted in the damage of Valdellons property HELD: 1. Yes. Respondent People of the Philippines was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner Suelto swerved the bus to the right with recklessness, thereby causing damage to the terrace of private respondents apartment. RATIO: Although she did not testify to seeing the incident as it happened, petitioner Suelto himself admitted this in his answer to the complaint and when he testified in the trial court.
Suelto narrated that he suddenly swerved the bus to the right of the road causing it to hit the column of the terrace of private respondent. Petitioners were burdened to prove that the damage to the terrace of private respondent was not the fault of petitioner Suelto. We have reviewed the evidence on record and find that petitioners failed to prove that petitioner acted on an emergency caused by the sudden intrusion of a passenger jeepney into the lane of the bus he was driving.
It was the burden of petitioners herein to prove petitioner Sueltos defense that he acted on an emergency, that is, he had to swerve the bus to the right to avoid colliding with a passenger jeep coming from EDSA that had overtaken another vehicle and intruded into the lane of the bus.
It is clear from the photographs submitted by the prosecution that the commercial apartment of Dr. Valdellon sustained heavy damage caused by the bus being driven by Suelto. "It seems highly improbable that the said damages were not caused by a strong impact. And, it is quite reasonable to conclude that, at the time of the impact, the bus was traveling at a high speed when Suelto tried to avoid the passenger jeepney."
The damages could not have been caused except by a speeding bus. Had the accused not been speeding, he could have easily reduced his speed and come to a full stop when he noticed the jeep. Were he more prudent in driving, he could have avoided the incident or even if he could not avoid the incident, the damages would have been less severe.
The severe damages sustained could not have resulted had the accused acted as a reasonable and prudent man would. The accused was not diligent as he claims to be. What is more probable is that the accused had to swerve to the right and hit the commercial apartment of the plaintiff because he could not make a full stop as he was driving too fast in a usually crowded street. CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE: DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):
