ObliCon Case Digest - Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez

NARCISO GUTIERREZ VS. BONIFACIO GUTIERREZ, MARIA V.
DE GUTIERREZ, MANUEL
GUTIERREZ, ABELARDO VELASCO, and SATURNINO CORTEZ
G.R No. 34840, September 23, 1931
EN BANC
MALCOLM, J.:
NATURE OF ACTION
This is an action filed by Narciso Gutierrez, the plaintiff, in the Court of First Instance of
Manila against the five defendants, to recover damages in the amount of P10,000, for
physical injuries suffered because of an automobile accident. On judgment being
rendered as prayed for by the plaintiff, both sets of defendants appealed.
FACTS
Automobile accident occurred on February 2, 1930, on the Talon bridge in Las Piñas,
Rizal. Collision between a passenger truck owned by Saturnino Cortez and driven by
Abelardo Velasco, and a private automobile owned by Mr. and Mrs. Manuel Gutierrez
and operated by their minor son, Bonifacio Gutierrez. Bonifacio's father was not in the
car at the time of the accident, but his mother and other family members were present.
Narciso Gutierrez, a passenger in the truck, suffered a fractured right leg because of the
collision.
ISSUE
Whether or not the defendants are liable for the damages caused by the automobile
accident.
RULING
YES. The Court held that the defendants are liable for damages caused by the
automobile accident.
In amplification of so much of the above pronouncement as concerns the Gutierrez

family, it may be explained that the youth Bonifacio was in incompetent chauffeur, that
he was driving at an excessive rate of speed, and that, on approaching the bridge and
the truck, he lost his head and so contributed by his negligence to the accident. The
guaranty given by the father at the time the son was granted a license to operate motor
vehicles made the father responsible for the acts of his son. Based on these facts,
pursuant to the provisions of article 1903 of the Civil Code, the father alone and not the
minor or the mother, would be liable for the damages caused by the minor.
We are dealing with the civil law liability of parties for obligations which arise from fault
or negligence. At the same time, we believe that, as has been done in other cases, we
can take cognizance of the common law rule on the same subject. In the United States, it
is uniformly held that the head of a house, the owner of an automobile, who maintains
it for the general use of his family is liable for its negligent operation by one of his
children, whom he designates or permits to run it, where the car is occupied and being
used at the time of the injury for the pleasure of other members of the owner's family
than the child driving it. The theory of the law is that the running of the machine by a
child to carry other members of the family is within the scope of the owner's business,
so that he is liable for the negligence of the child because of the relationship of master
and servant. (Huddy On Automobiles, 6th ed., sec. 660; Missell vs. Hayes [1914], 91 Atl.,
322.) The liability of Saturnino Cortez, the owner of the truck, and of his chauffeur
Digest by: Nilfpe Criss Salcedo

Abelardo Velasco rests on a different basis, namely, that of contract which, we think, has
been sufficiently demonstrated by the allegations of the complaint, not controverted,
and the evidence. The reason for this conclusion reaches to the findings of the trial court
concerning the position of the truck on the bridge, the speed in operating the machine,
and the lack of care employed by the chauffeur. While these facts are not as clearly
evidenced as are those which convict the other defendant, we nevertheless hesitate to
disregard the points emphasized by the trial judge. In its broader aspects, the case is one
of two drivers approaching a narrow bridge from opposite directions, with neither being
willing to slow up and give the right of way to the other, with the inevitable result of a
collision and an accident.
The defendants Velasco and Cortez further contend that there existed contributory
negligence on the part of the plaintiff, consisting principally of his keeping his foot
outside the truck, which occasioned his injury. In this connection, it is sufficient to state
that, aside from the fact that the defense of contributory negligence was not pleaded,
the evidence bearing out this theory of the case is contradictory in the extreme and
leads us far afield into speculative matters.
In consonance with the foregoing rulings, the judgment appealed from will be modified,
and the plaintiff will have judgment in his favor against the defendants Manuel
Gutierrez, Abelardo Velasco, and Saturnino Cortez, jointly and severally, for the sum of
P5,000, and the costs of both instances.
Digest by: Nilfpe Criss Salcedo

ObliCon Case Digest - Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ObliCon Case Digest - Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ObliCon Case Digest - Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NARCISO GUTIERREZ VS. BONIFACIO GUTIERREZ, MARIA V.

In amplification of so much of the above pronouncement as concerns the Gutierrez

Digest by: Nilfpe Criss Salcedo

Digest by: Nilfpe Criss Salcedo

You might also like