5/22/2018 Mariano, Jr vs Callejas

1/3

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 166640 July 31, 2009

HERMINIO MARIANO, JR.,Petitioner,vs.ILDEONSO C. CALLEJAS !"# EDGAR DE $ORJA,Respondents.

D ! I S I O N

PUNO, C.J.:

On appeal are the Decision"and Resolution#of the !ourt of $ppeals in !$%&.R. !VNo. ''()", dated Ma* #", #++ and -anuar* , #++/ respectivel*, 0hich reversedthe Decision1of the Re2ional Trial !ourt 3RT!4 of 5ue6on !it*, dated Septe7ber "1,"))), 0hich found respondents 8ointl* and severall* liable to pa* petitionerda7a2es for the death of his 0ife.

First, the facts9

Petitioner :er7inio Mariano, -r. is the survivin2 spouse of Dr. Frelinda Mariano 0ho0as a passen2er of a !el*rosa ;press bus bound for Ta2a*ta* 0hen she 7et herdeath. Respondent Ildefonso !. !alle8as is the re2istered o0ner of !el*rosa ;press,0hile respondent d2ar de of evidence. It, ho0ever, found $rcilla liable to pa* !alle8as the cost of therepairs of his passen2er bus, his lost earnin2s, e;e7plar* da7a2es and attorne*Asfees./

$ cri7inal case, !ri7inal !ase No. ###1%)#, 0as also ?led a2ainst truc> driver $rcillain the RT! of I7us, !avite. On Ma* 1, ")), the said court convicted truc> driver

$rcadio $rcilla of the cri7e of rec>less i7prudence resultin2 to ho7icide, 7ultiplesli2ht ph*sical in8uries and da7a2e to propert*.'

In the case at bar, the trial court, in its Decision dated Septe7ber "1, "))), foundrespondents Ildefonso !alle8as and d2ar de

5/22/2018 Mariano, Jr vs Callejas

2/3

$RT. "//. $ co77on carrier is bound to carr* the passen2ers safel* as far ashu7an care and foresi2ht can provide, usin2 the ut7ost dili2ence of ver* cautiouspersons, 0ith a due re2ard for all the circu7stances.

$RT. "/'. In case of death of or in8uries to passen2ers, co77on carriers arepresu7ed to have been at fault or to have acted ne2li2entl*, unless the* prove thatthe* observed e;traordinar* dili2ence as prescribed in articles "11 and "//.

In accord 0ith the above provisions, !el*rosa ;press, a co77on carrier, throu2h itsdriver, respondent De 0as on the oppositedirection, about /++ 7eters a0a* fro7 the point of i7pact. PO1 De Villa stated that

he intervie0ed De that lost its bra>es. PO1 De Villa chec>ed out the trailer truc> andfound that its bra>es reall* failed. :e testi?ed before the trial court, as follo0s9

$TTB. ST@BDIJ9

Bou pointed to the Isu6u truc> be*ond the point of i7pact. Did *ouinvesti2ate 0h* did 3sic4 the Isu6u truc> is be*ond the point of i7pactK

a has no bra>es.

!OHRT9

hat is the distance bet0een that circle 0hich is 7ar>ed as ;h. "%c tothe place 0here *ou found the sa7eK

a More or less /++ 7eters.

h* did *ou sa* that the truc> has no bra>esK

a I tested it.

$nd *ou found no bra>esK

a Bes, sir.

; ; ;

hen *ou 0ent to the scene of accident, 0hat 0as the position of!el*rosa busK

a It 0as l*in2 on its side.

!OHRT9

Ri2ht side or left sideK

a Ri2ht side.

$TTB. ST@BDIJ9

On 0hat part of the road 0as it l*in2K

a On the shoulder of the road.

!OHRT9

:o0 7an* 7eters fro7 the point of i7pactK

a Near, about / 7eters."

:is police report bolsters his testi7on* and states9

Said vehicle " Lpassen2er bus 0as runnin2 fro7 Manila to0ard south direction0hen, in the course of its travel, it 0as hit and bu7ped b* vehicle # Ltruc> 0ithtrailer then runnin2 fast fro7 opposite direction, causin2 said vehicle " to fall on itsside on the road shoulder, causin2 the death of one and in8uries of so7e passen2ersthereof, and its da7a2e, after collission (sic), vehicle # continiousl* (sic) ran andstopped at appro;i7atel* /++ 7eters a0a* fro7 the piont (sic) of i7pact."/

In ?ne, the evidence sho0s that before the collision, the passen2er bus 0as cruisin2on its ri2htful lane alon2 the $2uinaldo :i2h0a* 0hen the trailer truc> co7in2 fro7the opposite direction, on full speed, suddenl* s0erved and encroached on its lane,

and bu7ped the passen2er bus on its left 7iddle portion. Respondent driver De co7in2 fro7 the opposite

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_166640_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_166640_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_166640_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_166640_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_166640_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_166640_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_166640_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_166640_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_166640_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_166640_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_166640_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_166640_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_166640_2009.html#fnt15

5/22/2018 Mariano, Jr vs Callejas

3/3

direction 0ould sta* on its proper lane. :e 0as not e;pected to >no0 that the trailertruc> had lost its bra>es. The s0ervin2 of the trailer truc> 0as abrupt and it 0asrunnin2 on a fast speed as it 0as found /++ 7eters a0a* fro7 the point of collision.Secondl*, an* doubt as to the culpabilit* of the driver of the trailer truc> ou2ht tovanish 0hen he pleaded 2uilt* to the char2e of rec>less i7prudence resultin2 to7ultiple sli2ht ph*sical in8uries and da7a2e to propert* in !ri7inal !ase No. ###1%)#, involvin2 the sa7e incident.1avvph!1

IN VI :ROF, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated Ma* #", #++ andthe Resolution dated -anuar* , #++/ of the !ourt of $ppeals in !$%&.R. !V No.''()" are $FFIRMD.

SO ORDRD.