TIU VS ARRIESGADO Ruling:

According to the petitioners, the appellate court erred in failing to appreciate the absence of an early
Facts:
warning device and/or built-in reflectors at the front and back of the cargo truck, in clear violation of
At about 10:00 p.m. of March 15, 1987, the cargo truck marked "Condor Hollow Blocks and General Section 34, par. (g) of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code.
Merchandise" bearing plate number GBP-675 was loaded with firewood in Bogo, Cebu and left for Cebu
They aver that such violation is only a proof of respondent Pedrano's negligence, as provided under
City. Upon reaching Sitio Aggies, Poblacion, Compostela, Cebu, just as the truck... passed over a bridge,
Article 2185 of the New Civil Code. They also question the appellate court's failure to take into account
one of its rear tires exploded. The driver, Sergio Pedrano, then parked along the right side of the national
that the truck was parked in an oblique manner, its rear portion almost... at the center of the road. As
highway and removed the damaged tire to have it vulcanized at a nearby shop, about 700 meters away.
such, the proximate cause of the incident was the gross recklessness and imprudence of respondent
[3] Pedrano left his... helper, Jose Mitante, Jr. to keep watch over the stalled vehicle, and instructed the
Pedrano, creating the presumption of negligence on the part of respondent Condor in supervising his
latter to place a spare tire six fathoms away[4] behind the stalled truck to serve as a warning for
employees, which presumption was not rebutted. The... petitioners then contend that respondents
oncoming vehicles. The truck's tail lights were also left on. It was... about 12:00 a.m., March 16, 1987.
Condor and Pedrano should be held jointly and severally liable to respondent Arriesgado for the   
At about 4:45 a.m., D' Rough Riders passenger bus with plate number PBP-724 driven by Virgilio Te payment of the latter's claim.
Laspiñas was cruising along the national highway of Sitio Aggies, Poblacion, Compostela, Cebu. The
The petitioners, likewise, aver that expert evidence should have been presented to prove that petitioner
passenger bus was also bound for Cebu City, and had come from Maya, Daanbantayan,... Cebu. Among
Laspiñas was driving at a very fast speed, and that the CA could not reach such conclusion by merely
its passengers were the Spouses Pedro A. Arriesgado and Felisa Pepito Arriesgado, who were seated at
considering the damages on the cargo truck. It was also pointed out that... petitioner Tiu presented
the right side of the bus, about three (3) or four (4) places from the front seat.
evidence that he had exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision
As the bus was approaching the bridge, Laspiñas saw the stalled truck, which was then about 25 meters of his drivers.
away.[5] He applied the breaks and tried to swerve to the left to avoid hitting the truck. But it was too late;
Petitioner Laspiñas
the bus rammed into the truck's left rear.
Was negligent in driving
The impact damaged the right side of the bus and left several passengers injured.  Pedro Arriesgado lost
consciousness and suffered a fracture in his right colles.[6] His wife, Felisa, was brought to the Danao The Ill-fated bus
City Hospital.    She was... later transferred to the Southern Island Medical Center where she died shortly
In his testimony before the trial court, petitioner Laspiñas claimed that he was traversing the two-lane
thereafter.[7]
road at Compostela, Cebu at a speed of only forty (40) to fifty (50) kilometers per hour before the
Respondent Pedro A. Arriesgado then filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage, damages and incident occurred.[23] He also admitted that he... saw the truck which was parked in an "oblique position"
attorney's fees before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 20, against the petitioners, D' Rough at about 25 meters before impact,[24] and tried to avoid hitting it by swerving to the left. However, even
Riders bus operator William Tiu and his driver, Virgilio Te Laspiñas... on May 27, 1987. The respondent in the absence of expert evidence, the damage sustained by the truck[25] itself supports the finding of
alleged that the passenger bus in question was cruising at a fast and high speed along the national road, both the trial court and the appellate court, that the D' Rough Rider bus driven by petitioner Laspiñas was
and that petitioner Laspiñas did not take precautionary measures to avoid the accident. traveling at a fast pace. Since he saw the stalled truck at a distance of 25 meters, petitioner Laspiñas
had more than... enough time to swerve to his left to avoid hitting it; that is, if the speed of the bus was
The trial court also ruled that the absence of an early warning device near the place where the truck was
only 40 to 50 kilometers per hour as he claimed. As found by the Court of Appeals, it is easier to believe
parked was not sufficient to impute negligence on the part of respondent Pedrano, since the tail lights of
that petitioner Laspiñas was driving at a very fast speed, since at 4:45 a.m.,... the hour of the accident,
the truck were fully on, and the vicinity was well lighted by... street lamps.[16] It also found that the
there were no oncoming vehicles at the opposite direction. Petitioner Laspiñas could have swerved to
testimony of petitioner Tiu, that he based the selection of his driver Laspiñas on efficiency and in-service
the left lane with proper clearance, and, thus, could have avoided the truck.[26] Instinct, at the very least,
training, and that the latter had been so far an efficient and good driver for the past six years of his...
would have prompted... him to apply the breaks to avert the impending disaster which he must have
employment, was insufficient to prove that he observed the diligence of a good father of a family in the
foreseen when he caught sight of the stalled truck.
selection and supervision of his employees.
Indeed, petitioner Laspiñas' negligence in driving the bus is apparent in the records. By his own
After the petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the said decision was denied, the petitioners elevated
admission, he had just passed a bridge and was traversing the highway of Compostela, Cebu at a speed
the case to the Court of Appeals
of 40 to 50 kilometers per hour before the collision occurred. The maximum speed... allowed by law on a
The appellate court rendered judgment affirming the trial court's decision with the modification that the bridge is only 30 kilometers per hour.[29] And, as correctly pointed out by the trial court, petitioner
awards for moral and exemplary damages were reduced to P25,000. Laspiñas also violated Section 35 of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, Republic Act No. 4136,...
ec. 35. Restriction as to speed. (a) Any person driving a motor vehicle on a highway shall drive the same
According to the appellate court, the action of respondent Arriesgado was based not on quasi-delict but
at a careful and prudent speed, not greater nor less than is reasonable and proper, having due regard for
on breach of contract of carriage. As a common carrier, it was incumbent upon petitioner Tiu to prove
the traffic, the width of the highway,... and or any other condition then and there existing; and no person
that extraordinary diligence was observed in ensuring the safety of... passengers during transportation.
shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway at such speed as to endanger the life, limb and property of
Since the latter failed to do so, he should be held liable for respondent Arriesgado's claim.
any person, nor at a speed greater than will permit him to bring the vehicle to a stop... within the assured
Issues: clear distance ahead.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING PETITIONERS GUILTY OF Under Article 2185 of the Civil Code, a person driving a vehicle is presumed negligent if at the time of the
NEGLIGENCE AND HENCE, LIABLE TO RESPONDENT PEDRO A. ARRIESGADO. mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.
Petitioner Tiu failed to The common law notion of last clear chance... permitted courts to grant recovery to a plaintiff who has
also been negligent provided that the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the casualty and
Overcome the presumption
failed to do so.
Of negligence against him as
One engaged in the business
Of common carriage
The rules which common carriers should observe as to the safety of their passengers are set forth in the
Civil Code, Articles 1733,[32] 1755[33] and 1756.[34] In this case, respondent Arriesgado and... his
deceased wife contracted with petitioner Tiu, as owner and operator of D' Rough Riders bus service, for
transportation from Maya, Daanbantayan, Cebu, to Cebu City for the price of P18.00.[35] It is undisputed
that the respondent and his wife were not... safely transported to the destination agreed upon. In actions
for breach of contract, only the existence of such contract, and the fact that the obligor, in this case the
common carrier, failed to transport his passenger safely to his destination are the matters that need to
be... proved.[36] This is because under the said contract of carriage, the petitioners assumed the
express obligation to transport the respondent and his wife to their destination safely and to observe
extraordinary diligence with due regard for all... circumstances.[37] Any injury suffered by the passengers
in the course thereof is immediately attributable to the negligence of the carrier.[38] Upon the happening
of the accident, the presumption of negligence at once arises, and it... becomes the duty of a common
carrier to prove that he observed extraordinary diligence in the care of his passengers.[39] It must be
stressed that in requiring the highest possible degree of diligence from common carriers and in creating
a presumption of... negligence against them, the law compels them to curb the recklessness of their
drivers.[40]
While evidence may be submitted to overcome such presumption of negligence, it must be shown that
the carrier observed the required extraordinary diligence, which means that the carrier must show the
utmost diligence of very cautious persons as far as human care and foresight... can provide, or that the
accident was caused by fortuitous event.[41] As correctly found by the trial court, petitioner Tiu failed to
conclusively rebut such presumption. The negligence of petitioner Laspiñas as driver of the passenger
bus is, thus, binding... against petitioner Tiu, as the owner of the passenger bus engaged as a common
carrier.[42]
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the principle of last clear chance is inapplicable in the instant
case, as it only applies in a suit between the owners and drivers of two colliding vehicles. It does not
arise where a passenger demands responsibility... from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations,
for it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver and its owner on the ground that the other driver
was likewise guilty of negligence.
Principles:
In actions for breach of contract, only the existence of such contract, and the fact that the obligor, in this
case the common carrier, failed to transport his passenger safely to his destination are the matters that
need to be... proved.[36] This is because under the said contract of carriage, the petitioners assumed the
express obligation to transport the respondent and his wife to their destination safely and to observe
extraordinary diligence with due regard for all... circumstances.[37] Any injury suffered by the passengers
in the course thereof is immediately attributable to the negligence of the carrier.[38] Upon the happening
of the accident, the presumption of negligence at once arises, and it... becomes the duty of a common
carrier to prove that he observed extraordinary diligence in the care of his passengers.[39] It must be
stressed that in requiring the highest possible degree of diligence from common carriers and in creating
a presumption of... negligence against them, the law compels them to curb the recklessness of their
drivers.[40]