PRACKRRECTTERAS Flashcards
Erezo v. Jepte
G.R. No. L-9605
registered owner of a six by six truck
FACTS:Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila ordering defendant to pay plaintiff Gaudioso Erezo P3,000 on the death of Ernesto Erezo, son of plaintiff Gaudioso Erezo.
Defendant-appellant is the registered owner of a six by six truck bearing plate No. TC-1253. On August, 9, 1949, while the same was being driven by Rodolfo Espino y Garcia, it collided with a taxicab at the intersection of San Andres and Dakota Streets, Manila. As the truck went off the street, it hit Ernesto Erezo and another, and the former suffered injuries, as a result of which he died. The driver was prosecuted for homicide through reckless negligence in criminal case No. 10663 of the Court of First Instance of Manila. The accused pleaded guilty and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment and to pay the heirs of Ernesto Erezo the sum of P3,000. As the amount of the judgment could not be enforced against him, plaintiff brought this action against the registered owner of the truck, the defendant-appellant. The circumstances material to the case are stated by the court in its decision.
The defendant does not deny at the time of the fatal accident the cargo truck driven by Rodolfo Espino y Garcia was registered in his name. He, however, claims that the vehicle belonged to the Port Brokerage, of which he was the broker at the time of the accident. He explained, and his explanation was corroborated by Policarpio Franco, the manager of the corporation, that the trucks of the corporation were registered in his name as a convenient arrangement so as to enable the corporation to pay the registration fee with his backpay as a pre-war government employee. Franco, however, admitted that the arrangement was not known to the Motor Vehicle Office.
The trial court held that as the defendant-appellant represented himself to be the owner of the truck and the Motor Vehicle Office, relying on his representation, registered the vehicles in his name, the Government and all persons affected by the representation had the right to rely on his declaration of ownership and registration. It, therefore, held that the defendant-appellant is liable because he cannot be permitted to repudiate his own declaration. (Section 68 [a], Rule 123, and Art. 1431, New Civil Code.).
HELD:In synthesis, we hold that the registered owner, the defendant-appellant herein, is primarily responsible for the damage caused to the vehicle of the plaintiff-appellee, but he (defendant-appellant) has a right to be indemnified by the real or actual owner of the amount that he may be required to pay as damage for the injury caused to the plaintiff-appellant.1âwphïl.nêt
The decision is now before Us on a petition for review, petitioner Teja Marketing and/or Angel Jaucian presenting a lone assignment of error — whether or not respondent court erred in applying the doctrine of “pari delicto.”
We find the petition devoid of merit.
Unquestionably, the parties herein operated under an arrangement, commonly known as the “kabit system” whereby a person who has been granted a certificate of public convenience allows another person who owns motor vehicles to operate under such franchise for a fee. A certificate of public convenience is a special privilege conferred by the government. Abuse of this privilege by the grantees thereof cannot be countenanced. The “kabit system” has been Identified as one of the root causes of the prevalence of graft and corruption in the government transportation offices.
Although not outrightly penalized as a criminal offense, the kabit system is invariably recognized as being contrary to public policy and, therefore, void and in existent under Article 1409 of the Civil Code. It is a fundamental principle that the court will not aid either party to enforce an illegal contract, but will leave both where it finds then. Upon this premise it would be error to accord the parties relief from their predicament. Article 1412 of the Civil Code denies them such aid. It provides:
Art. 1412. If the act in which the unlawful or forbidden cause consists does not constitute a criminal offense, the following rules shall be observed:
- When the fault is on the part of both contracting parties, neither may recover that he has given by virtue of the contract, or demand, the performance of the other’s undertaking.
The defect of in existence of a contract is permanent and cannot be cured by ratification or by prescription. The mere lapse of time cannot give efficacy to contracts that are null and void.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. The assailed decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court (now the Court of Appeals) is AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Lim v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 125817
**FACTS: **
Sometime in 1982 private respondent Donato Gonzales purchased an Isuzu passenger jeepney from Gomercino Vallarta, holder of a certificate of public convenience for the operation of public utility vehicles plying the Monumento-Bulacan route. While private respondent Gonzales continued offering the jeepney for public transport services he did not have the registration of the vehicle transferred in his name nor did he secure for himself a certificate of public convenience for its operation. Thus Vallarta remained on record as its registered owner and operator.1âwphi1.nêt
On 22 July 1990, while the jeepney was running northbound along the North Diversion Road somewhere in Meycauayan, Bulacan, it collided with a ten-wheeler-truck owned by petitioner Abelardo Lim and driven by his co-petitioner Esmadito Gunnaban. Gunnaban owned responsibility for the accident, explaining that while he was traveling towards Manila the truck suddenly lost its brakes. To avoid colliding with another vehicle, he swerved to the left until he reached the center island. However, as the center island eventually came to an end, he veered farther to the left until he smashed into a Ferroza automobile, and later, into private respondent’s passenger jeepney driven by one Virgilio Gonzales. The impact caused severe damage to both the Ferroza and the passenger jeepney and left one (1) passenger dead and many others wounded.
ISSUE: Affirmed the decision of the trial court. In upholding the decision of the court a quo the appeals court concluded that while an operator under the kabit system could not sue without joining the registered owner of the vehicle as his principal, equity demanded that the present case be made an exception. Hence this petition.
HELD: In the present case it is at once apparent that the evil sought to be prevented in enjoining the kabit system does not exist. First, neither of the parties to the pernicious kabit system is being held liable for damages. Second, the case arose from the negligence of another vehicle in using the public road to whom no representation, or misrepresentation, as regards the ownership and operation of the passenger jeepney was made and to whom no such representation, or misrepresentation, was necessary. Thus it cannot be said that private respondent Gonzales and the registered owner of the jeepney were in estoppel for leading the public to believe that the jeepney belonged to the registered owner. Third, the riding public was not bothered nor inconvenienced at the very least by the illegal arrangement. On the contrary, it was private respondent himself who had been wronged and was seeking compensation for the damage done to him. Certainly, it would be the height of inequity to deny him his right.
In light of the foregoing, it is evident that private respondent has the right to proceed against petitioners for the damage caused on his passenger jeepney as well as on his business. Any effort then to frustrate his claim of damages by the ingenuity with which petitioners framed the issue should be discouraged, if not repelled.
In awarding damages for tortuous injury, it becomes the sole design of the courts to provide for adequate compensation by putting the plaintiff in the same financial position he was in prior to the tort. It is a fundamental principle in the law on damages that a defendant cannot be held liable in damages for more than the actual loss which he has inflicted and that a plaintiff is entitled to no more than the just and adequate compensation for the injury suffered. His recovery is, in the absence of circumstances giving rise to an allowance of punitive damages, limited to a fair compensation for the harm done. The law will not put him in a position better than where he should be in had not the wrong happened.12
In the present case, petitioners insist that as the passenger jeepney was purchased in 1982 for only ₱30,000.00 to award damages considerably greater than this amount would be improper and unjustified. Petitioners are at best reminded that indemnification for damages comprehends not only the value of the loss suffered but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain. In other words, indemnification for damages is not limited to damnum emergens or actual loss but extends to lucrum cessans or the amount of profit lost.13
Had private respondent’s jeepney not met an accident it could reasonably be expected that it would have continued earning from the business in which it was engaged. Private respondent avers that he derives an average income of ₱300.00 per day from his passenger jeepney and this earning was included in the award of damages made by the trial court and upheld by the appeals court. The award therefore of ₱236,000.00 as compensatory damages is not beyond reason nor speculative as it is based on a reasonable estimate of the total damage suffered by private respondent, i.e. damage wrought upon his jeepney and the income lost from his transportation business. Petitioners for their part did not offer any substantive evidence to refute the estimate made by the courts a quo.
However, we are constrained to depart from the conclusion of the lower courts that upon the award of compensatory damages legal interest should be imposed beginning 22 July 1990, i.e. the date of the accident. Upon the provisions of Art. 2213 of the Civil Code, interest “cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages, except when the demand can be established with reasonable certainty.” It is axiomatic that if the suit were for damages, unliquidated and not known until definitely ascertained, assessed and determined by the courts after proof, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum should be from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to be reasonably ascertained).14
In this case, the matter was not a liquidated obligation as the assessment of the damage on the vehicle was heavily debated upon by the parties with private respondent’s demand for ₱236,000.00 being refuted by petitioners who argue that they could have the vehicle repaired easily for ₱20,000.00. In fine, the amount due private respondent was not a liquidated account that was already demandable and payable.
One last word. We have observed that private respondent left his passenger jeepney by the roadside at the mercy of the elements. Article 2203 of the Civil Code exhorts parties suffering from loss or injury to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in question. One who is injured then by the wrongful or negligent act of another should exercise reasonable care and diligence to minimize the resulting damage. Anyway, he can recover from the wrongdoer money lost in reasonable efforts to preserve the property injured and for injuries incurred in attempting to prevent damage to it.15
However we sadly note that in the present case petitioners failed to offer in evidence the estimated amount of the damage caused by private respondent’s unconcern towards the damaged vehicle. It is the burden of petitioners to show satisfactorily not only that the injured party could have mitigated his damages but also the amount thereof; failing in this regard, the amount of damages awarded cannot be proportionately reduced.
WHEREFORE, the questioned Decision awarding private respondent Donato Gonzales ₱236,000.00 with legal interest from 22 July 1990 as compensatory damages and ₱30,000.00 as attorney’s fees is MODIFIED. Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be computed from the time the judgment of the lower court is made until the finality of this Decision. If the adjudged principal and interest remain unpaid thereafter, the interest shall be twelve percent (12%) per annum computed from the time judgment becomes final and executory until it is fully satisfied.1âwphi1.nêt
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Fabre. v. Court of Appeals
259 SCRA 426
FACTS: Petitioners Engracio Fabre, Jr. and his wife were owners of a 1982 model Mazda minibus. They used the bus principally in connection with a bus service for school children which they operated in Manila. The couple had a driver, Porfirio J. Cabil, whom they hired in 1981, after trying him out for two weeks, His job was to take school children to and from the St. Scholastica’s College in Malate, Manila.
On November 2, 1984 private respondent Word for the World Christian Fellowship Inc. (WWCF) arranged with petitioners for the transportation of 33 members of its Young Adults Ministry from Manila to La Union and back in consideration of which private respondent paid petitioners the amount of P3,000.00.
The group was scheduled to leave on November 2, 1984, at 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon. However, as several members of the party were late, the bus did not leave the Tropical Hut at the corner of Ortigas Avenue and EDSA until 8:00 o’clock in the evening. Petitioner Porfirio Cabil drove the minibus.
ISSUES:
I. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS WERE NEGLIGENT.
II. WHETHER OF NOT PETITIONERS WERE LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES SUFFERED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.
III WHETHER OR NOT DAMAGES CAN BE AWARDED AND IN THE POSITIVE, UP TO WHAT EXTENT.
HELD: As already stated, this case actually involves a contract of carriage. Petitioners, the Fabres, did not have to be engaged in the business of public transportation for the provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers to apply to them. As this Court has held: 10
Art. 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air for compensation, offering their services to the public.
The above article makes no distinction between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of persons or goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity (in local idiom, as “a sideline”). Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any distinction between a person or enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a carrier offering its services to the “general public,” i.e., the general community or population, and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population. We think that Article 1732 deliberately refrained from making such distinctions.
As common carriers, the Fabres were found to exercise “extraordinary diligence” for the safe transportation of the passengers to their destination. This duty of care is not excused by proof that they exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of their employee. As Art. 1759 of the Code provides:
Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the former’s employees although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common carriers.
This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees.
The same circumstances detailed above, supporting the finding of the trial court and of the appellate court that petitioners are liable under Arts. 2176 and 2180 for quasi delict, fully justify findings them guilty of breach of contract of carriage under Arts. 1733, 1755 and 1759 of the Civil Code.
Secondly, we sustain the award of damages in favor of Amyline Antonio. However, we think the Court of Appeals erred in increasing the amount of compensatory damages because private respondents did not question this award as inadequate. 11 To the contrary, the award of P500,000.00 for compensatory damages which the Regional Trial Court made is reasonable considering the contingent nature of her income as a casual employee of a company and as distributor of beauty products and the fact that the possibility that she might be able to work again has not been foreclosed. In fact she testified that one of her previous employers had expressed willingness to employ her again.
With respect to the other awards, while the decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals do not sufficiently indicate the factual and legal basis for them, we find that they are nevertheless supported by evidence in the records of this case. Viewed as an action for quasi delict, this case falls squarely within the purview of Art. 2219(2) providing for the payment of moral damages in cases of quasi delict. On the theory that petitioners are liable for breach of contract of carriage, the award of moral damages is authorized by Art. 1764, in relation to Art. 2220, since Cabil’s gross negligence amounted to bad faith.12 Amyline Antonio’s testimony, as well as the testimonies of her father and copassengers, fully establish the physical suffering and mental anguish she endured as a result of the injuries caused by petitioners’ negligence.
The award of exemplary damages and attorney’s fees was also properly made. However, for the same reason that it was error for the appellate court to increase the award of compensatory damages, we hold that it was also error for it to increase the award of moral damages and reduce the award of attorney’s fees, inasmuch as private respondents, in whose favor the awards were made, have not appealed. 13
As above stated, the decision of the Court of Appeals can be sustained either on the theory of quasi delict or on that of breach of contract. The question is whether, as the two courts below held, petitioners, who are the owners and driver of the bus, may be made to respond jointly and severally to private respondent. We hold that they may be. In Dangwa Trans. Co. Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 14 on facts similar to those in this case, this Court held the bus company and the driver jointly and severally liable for damages for injuries suffered by a passenger. Again, in Bachelor Express, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals 15 a driver found negligent in failing to stop the bus in order to let off passengers when a fellow passenger ran amuck, as a result of which the passengers jumped out of the speeding bus and suffered injuries, was held also jointly and severally liable with the bus company to the injured passengers.
The same rule of liability was applied in situations where the negligence of the driver of the bus on which plaintiff was riding concurred with the negligence of a third party who was the driver of another vehicle, thus causing an accident. In Anuran v. Buño, 16 Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 17 and Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 18 the bus company, its driver, the operator of the other vehicle and the driver of the vehicle were jointly and severally held liable to the injured passenger or the latters’ heirs. The basis of this allocation of liability was explained in Viluan v. Court of Appeals, 19 thus:
Nor should it make any difference that the liability of petitioner [bus owner] springs from contract while that of respondents [owner and driver of other vehicle] arises from quasi-delict. As early as 1913, we already ruled in Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez, 56 Phil. 177, that in case of injury to a passenger due to the negligence of the driver of the bus on which he was riding and of the driver of another vehicle, the drivers as well as the owners of the two vehicles are jointly and severally liable for damages. Some members of the Court, though, are of the view that under the circumstances they are liable on quasi-delict. 20
It is true that in Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals 21 this Court exonerated the jeepney driver from liability to the injured passengers and their families while holding the owners of the jeepney jointly and severally liable, but that is because that case was expressly tried and decided exclusively on the theory of culpa contractual. As this Court there explained:
The trial court was therefore right in finding that Manalo (the driver) and spouses Mangune and Carreon (the jeepney owners) were negligent. However, its ruling that spouses Mangune and Carreon are jointly and severally liable with Manalo is erroneous. The driver cannot be held jointly and severally liable with carrier in case of breach of the contract of carriage. The rationale behind this is readily discernible. Firstly, the contract of carriage is between the carrier is exclusively responsible therefore to the passenger, even if such breach be due to the negligence of his driver (see Viluan v. The Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. L-21477-81, April 29, 1966, 16 SCRA 742). 22
As in the case of BLTB, private respondents in this case and her coplaintiffs did not stake out their claim against the carrier and the driver exclusively on one theory, much less on that of breach of contract alone. After all, it was permitted for them to allege alternative causes of action and join as many parties as may be liable on such causes of action 23 so long as private respondent and her coplaintiffs do not recover twice for the same injury. What is clear from the cases is the intent of the plaintiff there to recover from both the carrier and the driver, thus, justifying the holding that the carrier and the driver were jointly and severally liable because their separate and distinct acts concurred to produce the same injury.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to award of damages. Petitioners are ORDERED to PAY jointly and severally the private respondent Amyline Antonio the following amounts:
Crisostomo v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 138334
PCI Leasing and Finance Inc. v. Court of Appeals
557 SCRA 141
prvte comcrcial vehicle for busnes use not offered to the general public
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking a reversal of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated December 12, 2003 affirming with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City which ordered petitioner and Renato Gonzaga (Gonzaga) to pay, jointly and severally, respondent the amount of P244,500.00 plus interest; and the CA Resolution2 dated February 18, 2004 denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
The facts, as found by the CA, are undisputed:
On October 19, 1990 at about 10:30 p.m., a Mitsubishi Lancer car with Plate Number PHD-206 owned by United Coconut Planters Bank was traversing the Laurel Highway, Barangay Balintawak, Lipa City. The car was insured with plantiff-appellee [UCPB General Insurance Inc.], then driven by Flaviano Isaac with Conrado Geronimo, the Asst. Manager of said bank, was hit and bumped by an 18-wheeler Fuso Tanker Truck with Plate No. PJE-737 and Trailer Plate No. NVM-133, owned by defendants-appellants PCI Leasing & Finance, Inc. allegedly leased to and operated by defendant-appellant Superior Gas & Equitable Co., Inc. (SUGECO) and driven by its employee, defendant appellant Renato Gonzaga.
The impact caused heavy damage to the Mitsubishi Lancer car resulting in an explosion of the rear part of the car. The driver and passenger suffered physical injuries. However, the driver defendant-appellant Gonzaga continued on its [sic] way to its [sic] destination and did not bother to bring his victims to the hospital.
Plaintiff-appellee paid the assured UCPB the amount of P244,500.00 representing the insurance coverage of the damaged car.
As the 18-wheeler truck is registered under the name of PCI Leasing, repeated demands were made by plaintiff-appellee for the payment of the aforesaid amounts. However, no payment was made. Thus, plaintiff-appellee filed the instant case on March 13, 1991.3
PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc., (petitioner) interposed the defense that it could not be held liable for the collision, since the driver of the truck, Gonzaga, was not its employee, but that of its co-defendant Superior Gas & Equitable Co., Inc. (SUGECO).4 In fact, it was SUGECO, and not petitioner, that was the actual operator of the truck, pursuant to a Contract of Lease signed by petitioner and SUGECO.5 Petitioner, however, admitted that it was the owner of the truck in question.6
After trial, the RTC rendered its Decision dated April 15, 1999,7 the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff UCPB General Insurance [respondent], ordering the defendants PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc., [petitioner] and Renato Gonzaga, to pay jointly and severally the former the following amounts: the principal amount of P244,500.00 with 12% interest as of the filing of this complaint until the same is paid; P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and P20,000.00 as costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.8
Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, petitioner appealed to the CA.the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision
**ISSUES: **Whether petitioner, as registered owner of a motor vehicle that figured in a quasi-delict may be held liable, jointly and severally, with the driver thereof, for the damages caused to third parties.
Whether petitioner, as a financing company, is absolved from liability by the enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8556, or the Financing Company Act of 1998.
HELD:Anent the first issue, the CA found petitioner liable for the damage caused by the collision since under the Public Service Act, if the property covered by a franchise is transferred or leased to another without obtaining the requisite approval, the transfer is not binding on the Public Service Commission and, in contemplation of law, the grantee continues to be responsible under the franchise in relation to the operation of the vehicle, such as damage or injury to third parties due to collisions.10
Petitioner claims that the CA’s reliance on the Public Service Act is misplaced, since the said law applies only to cases involving common carriers, or those which have franchises to operate as public utilities. In contrast, the case before this Court involves a private commercial vehicle for business use, which is not offered for service to the general public.11
**Petitioner’s contention has partial merit, as indeed, the vehicles involved in the case at bar are not common carriers, which makes the Public Service Act inapplicable.
**
However, the registered owner of the vehicle driven by a negligent driver may still be held liable under applicable jurisprudence involving laws on compulsory motor vehicle registration and the liabilities of employers for quasi-delicts under the Civil Code.
The principle of holding the registered owner of a vehicle liable for quasi-delicts resulting from its use is well-established in jurisprudence. Erezo v. Jepte,12 with Justice Labrador as ponente, wisely explained the reason behind this principle, thus:
Registration is required not to make said registration the operative act by which ownership in vehicles is transferred, as in land registration cases, because the administrative proceeding of registration does not bear any essential relation to the contract of sale between the parties (Chinchilla vs. Rafael and Verdaguer, 39 Phil. 888), but to permit the use and operation of the vehicle upon any public highway (section 5 [a], Act No. 3992, as amended.) The main aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify the owner so that if any accident happens, or that any damage or injury is caused by the vehicle on the public highways, responsibility therefor can be fixed on a definite individual, the registered owner. Instances are numerous where vehicles running on public highways caused accidents or injuries to pedestrians or other vehicles without positive identification of the owner or drivers, or with very scant means of identification. It is to forestall these circumstances, so inconvenient or prejudicial to the public, that the motor vehicle registration is primarily ordained, in the interest of the determination of persons responsible for damages or injuries caused on public highways.
“‘One of the principal purposes of motor vehicles legislation is identification of the vehicle and of the operator, in case of accident; and another is that the knowledge that means of detection are always available may act as a deterrent from lax observance of the law and of the rules of conservative and safe operation. Whatever purpose there may be in these statutes, it is subordinate at the last to the primary purpose of rendering it certain that the violator of the law or of the rules of safety shall not escape because of lack of means to discover him.’ The purpose of the statute is thwarted, and the displayed number becomes a ‘snare and delusion,’ if courts would entertain such defenses as that put forward by appellee in this case. No responsible person or corporation could be held liable for the most outrageous acts of negligence, if they should be allowed to place a ‘middleman’ between them and the public, and escape liability by the manner in which they recompense their servants.” (King vs. Brenham Automobile Co., 145 S.W. 278, 279.)
With the above policy in mind, the question that defendant-appellant poses is: should not the registered owner be allowed at the trial to prove who the actual and real owner is, and in accordance with such proof escape or evade responsibility and lay the same on the person actually owning the vehicle? We hold with the trial court that the law does not allow him to do so; the law, with its aim and policy in mind, does not relieve him directly of the responsibility that the law fixes and places upon him as an incident or consequence of registration. Were a registered owner allowed to evade responsibility by proving who the supposed transferee or owner is, it would be easy for him, by collusion with others or otherwise, to escape said responsibility and transfer the same to an indefinite person, or to one who possesses no property with which to respond financially for the damage or injury done. A victim of recklessness on the public highways is usually without means to discover or identify the person actually causing the injury or damage. He has no means other than by a recourse to the registration in the Motor Vehicles Office to determine who is the owner. The protection that the law aims to extend to him would become illusory were the registered owner given the opportunity to escape liability by disproving his ownership. If the policy of the law is to be enforced and carried out, the registered owner should not be allowed to prove the contrary to the prejudice of the person injured, that is, to prove that a third person or another has become the owner, so that he may thereby be relieved of the responsibility to the injured person.
The above policy and application of the law may appear quite harsh and would seem to conflict with truth and justice. We do not think it is so. A registered owner who has already sold or transferred a vehicle has the recourse to a third-party complaint, in the same action brought against him to recover for the damage or injury done, against the vendee or transferee of the vehicle. The inconvenience of the suit is no justification for relieving him of liability; said inconvenience is the price he pays for failure to comply with the registration that the law demands and requires.
In synthesis, we hold that the registered owner, the defendant-appellant herein, is primarily responsible for the damage caused to the vehicle of the plaintiff-appellee, but he (defendant-appellant) has a right to be indemnified by the real or actual owner of the amount that he may be required to pay as damage for the injury caused to the plaintiff-appellant.13
The case is still good law and has been consistently cited in subsequent cases.14 Thus, there is no good reason to depart from its tenets.
For damage or injuries arising out of negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle, the registered owner may be held civilly liable with the negligent driver either 1) subsidiarily, if the aggrieved party seeks relief based on a delict or crime under Articles 100 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code; or 2) solidarily, if the complainant seeks relief based on a quasi-delict under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. It is the option of the plaintiff whether to waive completely the filing of the civil action, or institute it with the criminal action, or file it separately or independently of a criminal action;15 his only limitation is that he cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.16
In case a separate civil action is filed, the long-standing principle is that the registered owner of a motor vehicle is primarily and directly responsible for the consequences of its operation, including the negligence of the driver, with respect to the public and all third persons.17 In contemplation of law, the registered owner of a motor vehicle is the employer of its driver, with the actual operator and employer, such as a lessee, being considered as merely the owner’s agent.18 This being the case, even if a sale has been executed before a tortious incident, the sale, if unregistered, has no effect as to the right of the public and third persons to recover from the registered owner.19 The public has the right to conclusively presume that the registered owner is the real owner, and may sue accordingly.20
In the case now before the Court, there is not even a sale of the vehicle involved, but a mere lease, which remained unregistered up to the time of the occurrence of the quasi-delict that gave rise to the case. Since a lease, unlike a sale, does not even involve a transfer of title or ownership, but the mere use or enjoyment of property, there is more reason, therefore, in this instance to uphold the policy behind the law, which is to protect the unwitting public and provide it with a definite person to make accountable for losses or injuries suffered in vehicular accidents.21 This is and has always been the rationale behind compulsory motor vehicle registration under the Land Transportation and Traffic Code and similar laws, which, as early as Erezo, has been guiding the courts in their disposition of cases involving motor vehicular incidents. It is also important to emphasize that such principles apply to all vehicles in general, not just those offered for public service or utility.22
The Court recognizes that the business of financing companies has a legitimate and commendable purpose.23 In earlier cases, it considered a financial lease or financing lease a legal contract,24 though subject to the restrictions of the so-called Recto Law or Articles 1484 and 1485 of the Civil Code.25 In previous cases, the Court adopted the statutory definition of a financial lease or financing lease, as:
[A] mode of extending credit through a non-cancelable lease contract under which the lessor purchases or acquires, at the instance of the lessee, machinery, equipment, motor vehicles, appliances, business and office machines, and other movable or immovable property in consideration of the periodic payment by the lessee of a fixed amount of money sufficient to amortize at least seventy (70%) of the purchase price or acquisition cost, including any incidental expenses and a margin of profit over an obligatory period of not less than two (2) years during which the lessee has the right to hold and use the leased property, x x x but with no obligation or option on his part to purchase the leased property from the owner-lessor at the end of the lease contract. 26
Petitioner presented a lengthy discussion of the purported trend in other jurisdictions, which apparently tends to favor absolving financing companies from liability for the consequences of quasi-delictual acts or omissions involving financially leased property.27 The petition adds that these developments have been legislated in our jurisdiction in Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8556,28 which provides:
Section 12. Liability of lessors. - Financing companies shall not be liable for loss, damage or injury caused by a motor vehicle, aircraft, vessel, equipment, machinery or other property leased to a third person or entity except when the motor vehicle, aircraft, vessel, equipment or other property is operated by the financing company, its employees or agents at the time of the loss, damage or injury.1avvphi1
Petitioner’s argument that the enactment of R.A. No. 8556, especially its addition of the new Sec. 12 to the old law, is deemed to have absolved petitioner from liability, fails to convince the Court.
These developments, indeed, point to a seeming emancipation of financing companies from the obligation to compensate claimants for losses suffered from the operation of vehicles covered by their lease. Such, however, are not applicable to petitioner and do not exonerate it from liability in the present case.
The new law, R.A. No. 8556, notwithstanding developments in foreign jurisdictions, do not supersede or repeal the law on compulsory motor vehicle registration. No part of the law expressly repeals Section 5(a) and (e) of R.A. No. 4136, as amended, otherwise known as the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, to wit:
Sec. 5. Compulsory registration of motor vehicles. - (a) All motor vehicles and trailer of any type used or operated on or upon any highway of the Philippines must be registered with the Bureau of Land Transportation (now the Land Transportation Office, per Executive Order No. 125, January 30, 1987, and Executive Order No. 125-A, April 13, 1987) for the current year in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
x x x x
(e) Encumbrances of motor vehicles. - Mortgages, attachments, and other encumbrances of motor vehicles, in order to be valid against third parties must be recorded in the Bureau (now the Land Transportation Office). Voluntary transactions or voluntary encumbrances shall likewise be properly recorded on the face of all outstanding copies of the certificates of registration of the vehicle concerned.
Cancellation or foreclosure of such mortgages, attachments, and other encumbrances shall likewise be recorded, and in the absence of such cancellation, no certificate of registration shall be issued without the corresponding notation of mortgage, attachment and/or other encumbrances.
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Neither is there an implied repeal of R.A. No. 4136. As a rule, repeal by implication is frowned upon, unless there is clear showing that the later statute is so irreconcilably inconsistent and repugnant to the existing law that they cannot be reconciled and made to stand together.29 There is nothing in R.A. No. 4136 that is inconsistent and incapable of reconciliation.
Thus, the rule remains the same: a sale, lease, or financial lease, for that matter, that is not registered with the Land Transportation Office, still does not bind third persons who are aggrieved in tortious incidents, for the latter need only to rely on the public registration of a motor vehicle as conclusive evidence of ownership.30 A lease such as the one involved in the instant case is an encumbrance in contemplation of law, which needs to be registered in order for it to bind third parties.31 Under this policy, the evil sought to be avoided is the exacerbation of the suffering of victims of tragic vehicular accidents in not being able to identify a guilty party. A contrary ruling will not serve the ends of justice. The failure to register a lease, sale, transfer or encumbrance, should not benefit the parties responsible, to the prejudice of innocent victims.
The non-registration of the lease contract between petitioner and its lessee precludes the former from enjoying the benefits under Section 12 of R.A. No. 8556.
This ruling may appear too severe and unpalatable to leasing and financing companies, but the Court believes that petitioner and other companies so situated are not entirely left without recourse. They may resort to third-party complaints against their lessees or whoever are the actual operators of their vehicles. In the case at bar, there is, in fact, a provision in the lease contract between petitioner and SUGECO to the effect that the latter shall indemnify and hold the former free and harmless from any “liabilities, damages, suits, claims or judgments” arising from the latter’s use of the motor vehicle.32 Whether petitioner would act against SUGECO based on this provision is its own option.
The burden of registration of the lease contract is minuscule compared to the chaos that may result if registered owners or operators of vehicles are freed from such responsibility. Petitioner pays the price for its failure to obey the law on compulsory registration of motor vehicles for registration is a pre-requisite for any person to even enjoy the privilege of putting a vehicle on public roads.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated December 12, 2003 and Resolution dated February 18, 2004 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Bascos v. Court of Appeals
221 SCRA 318
CAMPOS, JR., J p:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision ** of the Court of Appeals in “RODOLFO A. CIPRIANO, doing business under the name CIPRIANO TRADING ENTERPRISES plaintiff-appellee, vs. ESTRELLITA M. BASCOS, doing business under the name of BASCOS TRUCKING, defendant-appellant,” C.A.-G.R. CV No. 25216, the dispositive portion of which is quoted hereunder:
“PREMISES considered, We find no reversible error in the decision appealed from, which is hereby affirmed in toto. Costs against appellant.” 1
The facts, as gathered by this Court, are as follows:
Rodolfo A. Cipriano representing Cipriano Trading Enterprise (CIPTRADE for short) entered into a hauling contract 2 with Jibfair Shipping Agency Corporation whereby the former bound itself to haul the latter’s 2,000 m/tons of soya bean meal from Magallanes Drive, Del Pan, Manila to the warehouse of Purefoods Corporation in Calamba, Laguna. To carry out its obligation, CIPTRADE, through Rodolfo Cipriano, subcontracted with Estrellita Bascos (petitioner) to transport and to deliver 400 sacks of soya bean meal worth P156,404.00 from the Manila Port Area to Calamba, Laguna at the rate of P50.00 per metric ton. Petitioner failed to deliver the said cargo. As a consequence of that failure, Cipriano paid Jibfair Shipping Agency the amount of the lost goods in accordance with the contract which stated that:
“1. CIPTRADE shall be held liable and answerable for any loss in bags due to theft, hijacking and non-delivery or damages to the cargo during transport at market value, . . .” 3
Cipriano demanded reimbursement from petitioner but the latter refused to pay. Eventually, Cipriano filed a complaint for a sum of money and damages with writ of preliminary attachment 4 for breach of a contract of carriage. The prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Attachment was supported by an affidavit 5 which contained the following allegations:
“4. That this action is one of those specifically mentioned in Sec. 1, Rule 57 the Rules of Court, whereby a writ of preliminary attachment may lawfully issue, namely:
“(e) in an action against a party who has removed or disposed of his property, or is about to do so, with intent to defraud his creditors;”
- That there is no sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced by the present action;
- That the amount due to the plaintiff in the above-entitled case is above all legal counterclaims;”
The trial court granted the writ of preliminary attachment on February 17, 1987.
In her answer, petitioner interposed the following defenses: that there was no contract of carriage since CIPTRADE leased her cargo truck to load the cargo from Manila Port Area to Laguna; that CIPTRADE was liable to petitioner in the amount of P11,000.00 for loading the cargo; that the truck carrying the cargo was hijacked along Canonigo St., Paco, Manila on the night of October 21, 1988; that the hijacking was immediately reported to CIPTRADE and that petitioner and the police exerted all efforts to locate the hijacked properties; that after preliminary investigation, an information for robbery and carnapping were filed against Jose Opriano, et al.; and that hijacking, being a force majeure, exculpated petitioner from any liability to CIPTRADE.
ISSUES:
“I. THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PETITIONER AND PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS CARRIAGE OF GOODS AND NOT LEASE OF CARGO TRUCK.
II. GRANTING, EX GRATIA ARGUMENTI, THAT THE FINDING OF THE RESPONDENT COURT THAT THE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PETITIONER AND PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS CARRIAGE OF GOODS IS CORRECT, NEVERTHELESS, IT ERRED IN FINDING PETITIONER LIABLE THEREUNDER BECAUSE THE LOSS OF THE CARGO WAS DUE TO FORCE MAJEURE, NAMELY, HIJACKING.
III. THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISSOLVE/LIFT THE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT HAS BEEN RENDERED MOOT AND ACADEMIC BY THE DECISION OF THE MERITS OF THE CASE.” 7
The petition presents the following issues for resolution: (1) was petitioner a common carrier?; and (2) was the hijacking referred to a force majeure?
The Court of Appeals, in holding that petitioner was a common carrier, found that she admitted in her answer that she did business under the name A.M. Bascos Trucking and that said admission dispensed with the presentation by private respondent, Rodolfo Cipriano, of proofs that petitioner was a common carrier. The respondent Court also adopted in toto the trial court’s decision that petitioner was a common carrier, Moreover, both courts appreciated the following pieces of evidence as indicators that petitioner was a common carrier: the fact that the truck driver of petitioner, Maximo Sanglay, received the cargo consisting of 400 bags of soya bean meal as evidenced by a cargo receipt signed by Maximo Sanglay; the fact that the truck helper, Juanito Morden, was also an employee of petitioner; and the fact that control of the cargo was placed in petitioner’s care.
In disputing the conclusion of the trial and appellate courts that petitioner was a common carrier, she alleged in this petition that the contract between her and Rodolfo A. Cipriano, representing CIPTRADE, was lease of the truck. She cited as evidence certain affidavits which referred to the contract as “lease”. These affidavits were made by Jesus Bascos 8 and by petitioner herself. 9 She further averred that Jesus Bascos confirmed in his testimony his statement that the contract was a lease contract. 10 She also stated that: she was not catering to the general public. Thus, in her answer to the amended complaint, she said that she does business under the same style of A.M. Bascos Trucking, offering her trucks for lease to those who have cargo to move, not to the general public but to a few customers only in view of the fact that it is only a small business. 11
We agree with the respondent Court in its finding that petitioner is a common carrier.
Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines a common carrier as “(a) person, corporation or firm, or association engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public.” The test to determine a common carrier is “whether the given undertaking is a part of the business engaged in by the carrier which he has held out to the general public as his occupation rather than the quantity or extent of the business transacted.” 12 In this case, petitioner herself has made the admission that she was in the trucking business, offering her trucks to those with cargo to move. Judicial admissions are conclusive and no evidence is required to prove the same. 13
But petitioner argues that there was only a contract of lease because they offer their services only to a select group of people and because the private respondents, plaintiffs in the lower court, did not object to the presentation of affidavits by petitioner where the transaction was referred to as a lease contract.
Regarding the first contention, the holding of the Court in De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals 14 is instructive. In referring to Article 1732 of the Civil Code, it held thus:
“The above article makes no distinction between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of persons or goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity (in local idiom, as a “sideline”). Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any distinction between a person or enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a carrier offering its services to the “general public,” i.e., the general community or population, and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population. We think that Article 1732 deliberately refrained from making such distinctions.”
Regarding the affidavits presented by petitioner to the court, both the trial and appellate courts have dismissed them as self-serving and petitioner contests the conclusion. We are bound by the appellate court’s factual conclusions. Yet, granting that the said evidence were not self-serving, the same were not sufficient to prove that the contract was one of lease. It must be understood that a contract is what the law defines it to be and not what it is called by the contracting parties. 15 Furthermore, petitioner presented no other proof of the existence of the contract of lease. He who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. 16
Likewise, We affirm the holding of the respondent court that the loss of the goods was not due to force majeure.
Common carriers are obliged to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by them. 17 Accordingly, they are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated. 18 There are very few instances when the presumption of negligence does not attach and these instances are enumerated in Article 1734. 19 In those cases where the presumption is applied, the common carrier must prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence in order to overcome the presumption.
**In this case, petitioner alleged that hijacking constituted force majeure which exculpated her from liability for the loss of the cargo. **In De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals, 20 the Court held that hijacking, not being included in the provisions of Article 1734, must be dealt with under the provisions of Article 1735 and thus, the common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or negligent. To exculpate the carrier from liability arising from hijacking, he must prove that the robbers or the hijackers acted with grave or irresistible threat, violence, or force. This is in accordance with Article 1745 of the Civil Code which provides:
“Art. 1745. Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy;
xxx xxx xxx
(6) That the common carrier’s liability for acts committed by thieves, or of robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat, violences or force, is dispensed with or diminished;”
In the same case, 21 the Supreme Court also held that:
“Under Article 1745 (6) above, a common carrier is held responsible — and will not be allowed to divest or to diminish such responsibility — even for acts of strangers like thieves or robbers except where such thieves or robbers in fact acted with grave or irresistible threat, violence or force. We believe and so hold that the limits of the duty of extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods carried are reached where the goods are lost as a result of a robbery which is attended by “grave or irresistible threat, violence or force.”
To establish grave and irresistible force, petitioner presented her accusatory affidavit, 22 Jesus Bascos’ affidavit, 23 and Juanito Morden’s 24 “Salaysay”. However, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals have concluded that these affidavits were not enough to overcome the presumption. Petitioner’s affidavit about the hijacking was based on what had been told her by Juanito Morden. It was not a first-hand account. While it had been admitted in court for lack of objection on the part of private respondent, the respondent Court had discretion in assigning weight to such evidence. We are bound by the conclusion of the appellate court. In a petition for review on certiorari, We are not to determine the probative value of evidence but to resolve questions of law. Secondly, the affidavit of Jesus Bascos did not dwell on how the hijacking took place. Thirdly, while the affidavit of Juanito Morden, the truck helper in the hijacked truck, was presented as evidence in court, he himself was a witness as could be gleaned from the contents of the petition. Affidavits are not considered the best evidence if the affiants are available as witnesses. 25 The subsequent filing of the information for carnapping and robbery against the accused named in said affidavits did not necessarily mean that the contents of the affidavits were true because they were yet to be determined in the trial of the criminal cases.
The presumption of negligence was raised against petitioner. It was petitioner’s burden to overcome it. Thus, contrary to her assertion, private respondent need not introduce any evidence to prove her negligence. Her own failure to adduce sufficient proof of extraordinary diligence made the presumption conclusive against her.
Having affirmed the findings of the respondent Court on the substantial issues involved, We find no reason to disturb the conclusion that the motion to lift/dissolve the writ of preliminary attachment has been rendered moot and academic by the decision on the merits.
In the light of the foregoing analysis, it is Our opinion that the petitioner’s claim cannot be sustained. The petition is DISMISSED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Lita Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. L-64693
“Ex pacto illicito non oritur actio” [No action arises out of an illicit bargain] is the tune-honored maxim that must be applied to the parties in the case at bar. Having entered into an illegal contract, neither can seek relief from the courts, and each must bear the consequences of his acts.
The factual background of this case is undisputed.
Sometime in 1966, the spouses Nicasio M. Ocampo and Francisca Garcia, herein private respondents, purchased in installment from the Delta Motor Sales Corporation five (5) Toyota Corona Standard cars to be used as taxicabs. Since they had no franchise to operate taxicabs, they contracted with petitioner Lita Enterprises, Inc., through its representative, Manuel Concordia, for the use of the latter’s certificate of public convenience in consideration of an initial payment of P1,000.00 and a monthly rental of P200.00 per taxicab unit. To effectuate Id agreement, the aforesaid cars were registered in the name of petitioner Lita Enterprises, Inc, Possession, however, remained with tile spouses Ocampo who operated and maintained the same under the name Acme Taxi, petitioner’s trade name.
About a year later, on March 18, 1967, one of said taxicabs driven by their employee, Emeterio Martin, collided with a motorcycle whose driver, one Florante Galvez, died from the head injuries sustained therefrom. A criminal case was eventually filed against the driver Emeterio Martin, while a civil case for damages was instituted by Rosita Sebastian Vda. de Galvez, heir of the victim, against Lita Enterprises, Inc., as registered owner of the taxicab in the latter case, Civil Case No. 72067 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, petitioner Lita Enterprises, Inc. was adjudged liable for damages in the amount of P25,000.00 and P7,000.00 for attorney’s fees.
This decision having become final, a writ of execution was issued. One of the vehicles of respondent spouses with Engine No. 2R-914472 was levied upon and sold at public auction for 12,150.00 to one Sonnie Cortez, the highest bidder. Another car with Engine No. 2R-915036 was likewise levied upon and sold at public auction for P8,000.00 to a certain Mr. Lopez.
Thereafter, in March 1973, respondent Nicasio Ocampo decided to register his taxicabs in his name. He requested the manager of petitioner Lita Enterprises, Inc. to turn over the registration papers to him, but the latter allegedly refused. Hence, he and his wife filed a complaint against Lita Enterprises, Inc., Rosita Sebastian Vda. de Galvez, Visayan Surety & Insurance Co. and the Sheriff of Manila for reconveyance of motor vehicles with damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 90988 of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Trial on the merits ensued and on July 22, 1975, the said court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: têñ.£îhqwâ£
WHEREFORE, the complaint is hereby dismissed as far as defendants Rosita Sebastian Vda. de Galvez, Visayan Surety & Insurance Company and the Sheriff of Manila are concerned.
HELD: The defect of inexistence of a contract is permanent and incurable, and cannot be cured by ratification or by prescription. As this Court said in Eugenio v. Perdido, 2 “the mere lapse of time cannot give efficacy to contracts that are null void.”
The principle of in pari delicto is well known not only in this jurisdiction but also in the United States where common law prevails. Under American jurisdiction, the doctrine is stated thus: “The proposition is universal that no action arises, in equity or at law, from an illegal contract; no suit can be maintained for its specific performance, or to recover the property agreed to be sold or delivered, or damages for its property agreed to be sold or delivered, or damages for its violation. The rule has sometimes been laid down as though it was equally universal, that where the parties are in pari delicto, no affirmative relief of any kind will be given to one against the other.” 3 Although certain exceptions to the rule are provided by law, We see no cogent reason why the full force of the rule should not be applied in the instant case.
WHEREFORE, all proceedings had in Civil Case No. 90988 entitled “Nicasio Ocampo and Francisca P. Garcia, Plaintiffs, versus Lita Enterprises, Inc., et al., Defendants” of the Court of First Instance of Manila and CA-G.R. No. 59157-R entitled “Nicasio Ocampo and Francisca P. Garica, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus Lita Enterprises, Inc., Defendant-Appellant,” of the Intermediate Appellate Court, as well as the decisions rendered therein are hereby annuleled and set aside. No costs.
FGU Insurance Corp. v. Sarmiento Trucking Corp.
386 SCRA 312
FACTS:G.P. Sarmiento Trucking Corporation (GPS) undertook to deliver on 18 June 1994 thirty (30) units of Condura S.D. white refrigerators aboard one of its Isuzu truck, driven by Lambert Eroles, from the plant site of Concepcion Industries, Inc., along South Superhighway in Alabang, Metro Manila, to the Central Luzon Appliances in Dagupan City. While the truck was traversing the north diversion road along McArthur highway in Barangay Anupol, Bamban, Tarlac, it collided with an unidentified truck, causing it to fall into a deep canal, resulting in damage to the cargoes.
FGU Insurance Corporation (FGU), an insurer of the shipment, paid to Concepcion Industries, Inc., the value of the covered cargoes in the sum of P204,450.00. FGU, in turn, being the subrogee of the rights and interests of Concepcion Industries, Inc., sought reimbursement of the amount it had paid to the latter from GPS. Since the trucking company failed to heed the claim, FGU filed a complaint for damages and breach of contract of carriage against GPS and its driver Lambert Eroles with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, of Makati City. In its answer, respondents asserted that GPS was the exclusive hauler only of Concepcion Industries, Inc., since 1988, and it was not so engaged in business as a common carrier. Respondents further claimed that the cause of damage was purely accidental.
The issues having thus been joined, FGU presented its evidence, establishing the extent of damage to the cargoes and the amount it had paid to the assured. GPS, instead of submitting its evidence, filed with leave of court a motion to dismiss the complaint by way of demurrer to evidence on the ground that petitioner had failed to prove that it was a common carrier.
The subsequent motion for reconsideration having been denied, plaintiff interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, contending that the trial court had erred (a) in holding that the appellee corporation was not a common carrier defined under the law and existing jurisprudence; and (b) in dismissing the complaint on a demurrer to evidence.
**ISSUE: **
I
WHETHER RESPONDENT GPS MAY BE CONSIDERED AS A COMMON CARRIER AS DEFINED UNDER THE LAW AND EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE.
II
WHETHER RESPONDENT GPS, EITHER AS A COMMON CARRIER OR A PRIVATE CARRIER, MAY BE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENT WHEN THE GOODS IT UNDERTOOK TO TRANSPORT SAFELY WERE SUBSEQUENTLY DAMAGED WHILE IN ITS PROTECTIVE CUSTODY AND POSSESSION.
III
WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR IS APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE.
HELD:
On the first issue, the Court finds the conclusion of the trial court and the Court of Appeals to be amply justified. GPS, being an exclusive contractor and hauler of Concepcion Industries, Inc., rendering or offering its services to no other individual or entity, cannot be considered a common carrier. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for hire or compensation, offering their services to the public, whether to the public in general or to a limited clientele in particular, but never on an exclusive basis. The true test of a common carrier is the carriage of passengers or goods, providing space for those who opt to avail themselves of its transportation service for a fee. Given accepted standards, GPS scarcely falls within the term “common carrier.”
Cargolift Shipping, Inc. v. L. Acuario Marketing Corp.
493 SCRA 157
FACTS:This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the July 6, 2000 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 55664, which affirmed the judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 121, in Civil Case No. C-16120 in so far as it found petitioner Cargolift Shipping, Inc. (“Cargolift”) liable, as third-party defendant, for actual damages in the sum of P97,021.20, as well as the November 28, 2000 Resolution3 denying the motion for reconsideration.
The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:
Sometime in March 1993, respondent L. Acuario Marketing Corp., (“Acuario”) and respondent Skyland Brokerage, Inc., (“Skyland”) entered into a time charter agreement whereby Acuario leased to Skyland its L. Acuario II barge for use by the latter in transporting electrical posts from Manila to Limay, Bataan. At the same time, Skyland also entered into a separate contract with petitioner Cargolift, for the latter’s tugboats to tow the aforesaid barge.
In accordance with the foregoing contracts, petitioner’s tugboat M/T Beejay left the Manila South Harbor on April 1, 1993 with Acuario’s barge in tow. It reached the port of Limay, Bataan on April 3, 1993, whereupon M/T Beejay disengaged and once again set sail for Manila. Petitioner’s other tugboat, the M/T Count, remained in Bataan to secure the barge for unloading.
Off-loading operations went underway until April 7, 1993, when operations were interrupted for the next two days to give way to the observance of the lenten season. The unloading of the cargo was concluded on April 12, 1993, by which time M/T Beejay had gone back to Bataan for the return trip. The M/T Beejay and the barge returned to the port of Manila on April 13, 1993.
On the same day, the barge was brought to Acuario’s shipyard where it was allegedly discovered by Acuario’s dry-docking officer, Guillermo Nacu, Jr., that the barge was listing due to a leak in its hull. According to Nacu, he was informed by the skipper of the tugboat that the damage was sustained in Bataan. To confirm the same, Nacu ordered an underwater survey of the barge and prepared a damage report dated April 14, 1993. No representative of Skyland was present during the inspection although it was furnished with a copy of the said report.
ISSUES: I
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT L. ACUARIO II SUSTAINED DAMAGE AND THAT IT WAS SUSTAINED DURING ITS CHARTER TO RESPONDENT SKYLAND.
II
ASSUMING THAT L. ACUARIO II SUFFERED DAMAGE, WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE TRIAL COURT DECISION HOLDING PETITIONER LIABLE THEREFOR.
HELD:
The petition lacks merit.
On the first assigned error, petitioner is asking this Court to resolve factual issues that have already been settled by the courts below. The question of whether the barge had been damaged during its charter to Skyland is a factual matter, the determination of which may not be generally disturbed on appeal. Questions of fact are not reviewable by this Court except under certain exceptional circumstances.15 No such exceptional circumstance exists in the case at bar.
On the contrary, the factual conclusions reached by the courts below are consistent with the evidence on record. Acuario’s witnesses testified that strong winds and waves caused the barge to bump into the walls of the pier where it was berthed for unloading. Petitioner’s tugboat failed to tow it farther away due to engine breakdown, thus causing the barge to sustain a hole in its hull. These testimonies were duly supported and corroborated by documentary evidence detailing the damage and repairs done on the barge.16
On the other hand, petitioner and Skyland’s denial that there was inclement weather in the early hours of April 7, 1993 and that the barge sustained no damage on this occasion were not supported by evidence to overcome the positive allegations of Acuario’s witnesses who were present at the place and time of the incident. The categorical declaration of Acuario’s witnesses regarding the events which led to the damage on the barge shifted the burden of evidence on petitioner and Skyland. They could have easily disproved Acuario’s claims by presenting competent proof that there was no weather disturbance on that day or, by presenting the testimony of individuals who have personal knowledge of the events which transpired.
Moreover, the inability of petitioner’s and Skyland’s witnesses to unequivocally declare that it was still the M/T Count that secured the barge during the resumption of off-loading operations casts suspicion on their credibility. As aptly observed by the trial court, such hesitation on the part of its witnesses is indicative of uncertainty, if not a propensity to withhold information that could be unfavorable to their cause. To our mind, therefore, the trial court rightly concluded that petitioner’s M/T Count indeed encountered mechanical trouble, as asserted by Acuario. The fact that petitioner did not categorically deny the allegation of mechanical trouble only serves to strengthen the trial court’s conclusion.
Petitioner’s assertion that it is contrary to human experience for the barge to have made the return trip to Manila if it sustained the alleged damage deserves short shrift. The trial court found that the damage on the barge was not too extensive as to render it incapable of staying afloat and being used in operation. Neither was it impossible for the barge’s cargo to remain intact and undamaged during the weather disturbance. Apart from the fact that the cargo which consisted of wooden electric poles are, by nature, not easily damaged by adverse weather,18 part of it had already been unloaded when the unfortunate incident occurred.
Consequently, we find no cogent reason to disturb the lower courts’ finding that the barge sustained a hole in its hull when petitioner’s tugboat failed to tow it to a safer distance as the weather changed in the port of Limay. This Court is bound by the factual determinations of the appellate court especially when these are supported by substantial evidence and merely affirm those of the trial court,19 as in this case. There is no showing here that the inferences made by the Court of Appeals were manifestly mistaken, or that the appealed judgment was based on a misapprehension of facts, or that the appellate court overlooked certain relevant, undisputed facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.20 Thus, a reversal of the factual findings in this case is unwarranted.
As for the second assigned error, petitioner asserts that it could not be held liable for the damage sustained by Acuario’s barge because the latter sought to recover upon its contract with Skyland, to which petitioner was not a party. Since it had no contractual relation with Acuario, only Skyland should be held liable under the contract. Besides, Skyland contractually assumed the risk that the tugboat might encounter engine trouble when it acknowledged in its contract with petitioner that the latter’s vessels were in good order and in seaworthy condition. At any rate, it was neither negligent in the performance of its obligation nor the proximate cause of the damage.
II
ASSUMING THAT L. ACUARIO II SUFFERED DAMAGE, WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE TRIAL COURT DECISION HOLDING PETITIONER LIABLE THEREFOR.
We do not agree.
It was not Acuario that seeks to hold petitioner liable for the damage to the barge, as the former in fact sued only Skyland pursuant to their charter agreement. It was Skyland that impleaded petitioner as third-party defendant considering that Skyland was being held accountable for the damage attributable to petitioner. In other words, petitioner was not sued under Skyland’s charter agreement with Acuario, but pursuant to its separate undertaking with Skyland. Strictly speaking, therefore, petitioner is not being held liable under any charter agreement with Acuario.
Consequently, it is not correct for petitioner to assert that Acuario could not recover damages from it due to lack of privity of contract between them. It is not Acuario that is seeking damages from petitioner but Skyland, with whom it undoubtedly had a juridical tie. While Acuario could hold Skyland liable under its charter agreement, Skyland in turn could enforce liability on petitioner based on the latter’s obligation to Skyland. In other words, petitioner is being held liable by Skyland and not by Acuario.
Thus, in the performance of its contractual obligation to Skyland, petitioner was required to observe the due diligence of a good father of the family. This much was held in the old but still relevant case of Baer Senior & Co.’s Successors v. La Compania Maritima21 where the Court explained that a tug and its owners must observe ordinary diligence in the performance of its obligation under a contract of towage. The negligence of the obligor in the performance of the obligation renders him liable for damages for the resulting loss suffered by the obligee. Fault or negligence of the obligor consists in his failure to exercise due care and prudence in the performance of the obligation as the nature of the obligation so demands.22
In the case at bar, the exercise of ordinary prudence by petitioner means ensuring that its tugboat is free of mechanical problems. While adverse weather has always been a real threat to maritime commerce, the least that petitioner could have done was to ensure that the M/T Count or any of its other tugboats would be able to secure the barge at all times during the engagement. This is especially true when considered with the fact that Acuario’s barge was wholly dependent upon petitioner’s tugboat for propulsion. The barge was not equipped with any engine and needed a tugboat for maneuvering.
Needless to say, if petitioner only subjected the M/T Count to a more rigid check-up or inspection, the engine malfunction could have been discovered or avoided. The M/T Count was exclusively controlled by petitioner and the latter had the duty to see to it that the tugboat was in good running condition. There is simply no basis for petitioner’s assertion that Skyland contractually assumed the risk of any engine trouble that the tugboat may encounter. Skyland merely procured petitioner’s towing service but in no way assumed any such risk.
That petitioner’s negligence was the proximate cause of the damage to the barge cannot be doubted. Had its tugboat been serviceable, the barge could have been moved away from the stone wall with facility. It is too late in the day for petitioner to insist that the proximate cause of the damage was the barge patron’s negligence in not objecting to the position of the barge by the stone wall. Aside from the fact that the position of the barge is quite understandable since off-loading operations were then still underway,24 the alleged negligence of the barge patron is a matter that is also being raised for the first time before this Court.
Thus, the damage to the barge could have been avoided had it not been for the tugboat’s inability to tow it away from the stone wall. Considering that a barge has no power of its own and is totally defenseless against the ravages of the sea, it was incumbent upon petitioner to see to it that it could secure the barge by providing a seaworthy tugboat. Petitioner’s failure to do so did not only increase the risk that might have been reasonably anticipated during the shipside operation but was the proximate cause of the damage.25 Hence, as correctly found by the courts below, it should ultimately be held liable therefor.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 55664 dated July 6, 2000 and the Resolution dated November 28, 2000, finding petitioner Cargolift Shipping, Inc. liable, as third-party defendant, for actual damages in the sum of P97,021.20, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Santos v. Sibug
104 SCRA 520
FACTS:Prior to April 26, 1963 (the ACCIDENT DATE), Vicente U. Vidad (VIDAD, for short) was a duly authorized passenger jeepney operator. Also prior to the ACCIDENT DATE, petitioner Adolfo L. Santos (SANTOS, for short) was the owner of a passenger jeep, but he had no certificate of public convenience for the operation of the vehicle as a public passenger jeep. SANTOS then transferred his jeep to the name of VIDAD so that it could be operated under the latter’s certificate of public convenience. ln other words, SANTOS became what is known in ordinary parlance as a kabit operator. For the protection of SANTOS, VIDAD executed a re-transfer document to the former, which was to be a private document presumably to be registered if and where it was decided that the passenger jeep of SANTOS was to be withdrawn from the kabit arrangement.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
On the ACCIDENT DATE, private respondent Abraham Sibug (SIBUG for short) was bumped by a passenger jeepney operated by VIDAD and driven by Severe Gragas. As a result thereof, SIBUG filed a complaint for damages against VIDAD and Gragas with the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XVII, then presided by Hon. Arsenic Solidum. That Civil Case will hereinafter be referred to as the BRANCH XVII CASE.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
On December 5, 1963, a judgment was rendered by Branch XVII, sentencing VIDAD and Gragas, jointly and severally, to pay SIBUG the sums of P506.20 as actual damages; P3,000.00 as moral damages; P500.00 as attorney’s fees, and costs. 1chanrobles virtual law library
On April 10, 1964, the Sheriff of Manila levied on a motor vehicle, with Plate No. PUJ-343-64, registered in the name of VIDAD, and scheduled the public auction sale thereof on May 8,1964.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
On April 11, 1964, SANTOS presented a third-party claim with the Sheriff alleging actual ownership of the motor vehicle levied upon, and stating that registration thereof in the name of VIDAD was merely to enable SANTOS to make use of VIDAD’S Certificate of Public Convenience. After the third-party complaint was filed, SIBUG submitted to the Sheriff a bond issued by the Philippine Surety Insurance Company (THE BONDING COMPANY, for short), To save the Sheriff from liability if he were to proceed with the sale and if SANTOS’ third-party claim should be ultimately upheld.
HELD:In this case, SANTOS had fictitiously sold the jeepney to VIDAD, who had become the registered owner and operator of record at the time of the accident. lt is true that VIDAD had executed a re-sale to SANTOS, but the document was not registered. Although SANTOS, as the kabit was the true owner as against VIDAD, the latter, as the registered owner/operator and grantee of the franchise, is directly and primarily responsible and liable for the damages caused to SIBUG, the injured party, as a consequence of the negligent or careless operation of the vehicle. This ruling is based on the principle that the operator of record is considered the operator of the vehicle in contemplation of law as regards the public and third persons even if the vehicle involved in the accident had been sold to another where such sale had not been approved by the then Public Service Commission. For the same basic reason, as the vehicle here in question was registered in VIDAD’S name, the levy on execution against said vehicle should be enforced so that the judgment in the BRANCH XVII CASE may be satisfied, notwithstanding the fact that the secret ownership of the vehicle belonged to another. SANTOS, as the kabit should not be allowed to defeat the levy on his vehicle and to avoid his responsibilities as a kabit owner for he had led the public to believe that the vehicle belonged to VIDAD. This is one way of curbing the pernicious kabit system that facilitates the commission of fraud against the travelling public.
As indicated in the Erezo case, supra, SANTOS’ remedy. as the real owner of the vehicle, is to go against VIDAD, the actual operator who was responsible for the accident, for the recovery of whatever damages SANTOS may suffer by reason of the execution. In fact, if SANTOS, as the kabit had been impleaded as a party defendant in the BRANCH XVII CASE, he should be held jointly and severally liable with VIDAD and the driver for damages suffered by SIBUG, 9 as well as for exemplary damages.
