You are on page 1of 2

LIABILITY OF OWNERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES

GUILLANG V BEDANIA & de SILVA


G.R 162987 | May 21, 2009 | Carpio, J. | Digester: Bernice Ares

SUMMARY: Collision between a truck and a sedan, wherein the truck, in making a U-turn along a highway, violated numerous
traffic rules (truck made the U-turn without signal lights and then after the collision, the driver escaped and abandoned the
victims and his truck). The Court said that under the Civil Code (Art. 2185), unless there is proof to the contrary, a person
driving a vehicle is presumed negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. Such is what
happened in this case.

IMPORTANT PEOPLE:
Genaro, Guillang, Jurilla, Dignadice and Llanillo passengers of the brand new Toyota Corolla
Rodolfo Bedania driver of the ten-wheeler truck
Rodolfo de Silva owner of the truck

FACTS:
1. On Oct. 25, 1994, the Toyota Corolla was along Aguinaldo Highway, Cavite, heading towards Manila. The truck was going
towards Tagaytay City.
2. Along the highway and on the road leading to the Orchard Golf Course, the truck made a U-turn. However, upon entering
the opposite lane of the highway, the Toyota hit the right portion of the truck, and was dragged along for another 5
meters to the right side of the road.
3. The car was a total wreck and as a result of the collision, the passengers were severely injured and one of them, Guillang,
died. The truck sustained minor damage.
4. The passengers of the Toyota (herein petitioners), filed a complaint for damages based on quasi-delict against the
respondents.
5. TC: in favor of petitioners: proximate cause was the sudden U-turn of the truck without use of signal lights
- Truck made a sudden U-turn in the highway, instead of doing it in an intersection.
- Truck did so without signal lights
- Because of the violations of the traffic regulations, there is a presumption that the driver is negligent.
- Aside from that, he even escaped after the collision, making him grossly negligent.
- The driver being negligent, there is also a presumption of negligence on the part of de Silva in the selection and
supervision of his employees.
- De Silva failed to prove the defense of exercise of diligence of a good father of a family; hence, he is liable for damages
6. CA: in favor of respondents: proximate cause was Toyotas failure to stop the car despite seeing the truck
- TC overlooked substantial facts and circumstances
- Truck had properly positioned itself and had already made the U-turn before the impact
- The Toyota was driving really fast, and was unable to stop on time
- The truck could not have made the U-turn at a sudden and fast speed because of its size
- Gerano (the driver of the Toyota) had no reason not to be prudent because he was approaching an intersection. His
failure to observe the necessary precautions was the proximate cause of the death and their injuries.
- There was testimony that because Gerano had overtaken another vehicle before the collision, he did not see the truck
as the other vehicle temporarily blocked his view.
- It was normal for trucks to make a U-turn in that area since the entrance to the Orchard Golf Course was spacious.

ISSUES:
1. Which driver was negligent the truck driver
Conclusion of the CA that Genaro was negligent is not supported by the evidence on record.
- CA gave weight to testimonies of the Police Traffic Investigator that were contradicting with the report that
the same Investigator made after the collision and with the police records.
- The Toyota was not running fast: no skid marks, and the report or police records did not indicate such
- PTI said the Toyota passengers were drunk: in the report, he indicated that they were normal; no indication
that they were drunk.
- He testified that when he arrived, Bedania was inside the truck: in the police records, he stated that Bedania
escaped and abandoned the victims; Bedania was later arrested at his barracks.
- If the truck had already executed the U-turn, it should have been hit in the rear, or if halfway there, in the
middle portion of the trailer. But the car hit the trucks gas tank, located at the trucks right middle portion.
- Truck did not U-turn at an intersection. Police sketch indicated no such thing.
- It was not normal for a truck to make a U-turn on a highway. If the truck wanted to change directions, it
should have sought an intersection, and should have used signal lights.
Under CC Art. 2185, unless there is proof to the contrary, a person driving a vehicle is presumed negligent if at
the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.
- He violated numerous traffic rules: turning without signal lights, and escaping and abandoning the
petitioners and his truck after the collision.
- Hence, the presumption arises that he was negligent at the time of the mishap.
- The sudden U-turn of the truck without signal lights posed a serious risk to oncoming motorists. Bedania
failed to prevent or minimize that risk.
The car had the right of way over the truck that was making a U-turn.
Contrary to CAs conclusion, TC did not say that the truck was travelling at a fast speed; it just said that the truck
made a sudden U-turn, meaning unexpectedly and with no warning.
Bedanias negligence was the proximate cause o the collision.
De Silva, as Bedanias employer is also liable for the damages since he failed to prove that he exercised all the
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employees.

2. On damages
Moral damages Yes to the heirs of deceased, reduced in the case of the other passengers
Funeral and burial expenses Yes
Hospitalization expenses Yes
Repair of the car Yes (it was brand new and then poof total wreck. Huhu)
Exemplary damages Yes to serve was an example for the public good.
- In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence
- While the amount of exemplary damages need not be proved, the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to
moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the award of exemplary
damages.

WHEREFORE, CA decision REVERSED.

You might also like