RAMON MARIANO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. AGNES DE JESUS AND RODOLFO PAGALA, JR., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
COSICO, J.:
The Facts
On January 2, 1999, at about 7:30 in the morning, an Amante Passenger Jeepney with plate number DFA-509 being driven by defendant-appellant Rodolfo Pagala, Jr. along the Victoria-Tarlac City Provincial Road collided with a bicycle being operated by plaintiff-appellee Ramon Mariano. The passenger jeepney was registered in the name of defendant-appellant Agnes de Jesus, who was also the employer of defendant-appellant Pagala, Jr.
Plaintiff-appellee Mariano claims that the collision was the result of the gross negligence of defendant-appellant Pagala, Jr. Because of the impact, he suffered a fracture on his right thigh and knee. He incurred medical expenses by reason of the accident, and even failed to earn as a farmer during the period of his medication. Defendant-appellant De Jesus was impleaded in the suit for damages for her failure to exercise the due diligence of a good father of a family in the selection, control and supervision of her employee-driver.
Witness Liberado Pascual, who testified for the plaintiff-appellee, claimed that he was waiting for passengers and talking to some men near the place of the collision at the time the said collision happened. According to him, the jeepney being driven by Pagala, Jr. tried to avoid a crack on the road and in doing so, intruded on the opposite lane of the highway, and then hit the bicycle being driven by the plaintiff-appellee. The passenger jeepney was then coming from Victoria, and was running at a fast clip.
Defendants-appellants, on the other hand, blame Mariano for the accident. Pagala, Jr. maintains that prior to the mishap, he was driving the passenger jeepney carefully, diligently and in accordance with settled traffic rules. According to him, he was driving along the highway at a moderate speed when the bicycle being operated by Mariano came from the opposite direction of the highway, tried to overtake the motorized cart before it, encroached upon the lane of Pagala, Jr. and then hit the left portion of the jeepney. Defendant-appellant De Jesus, on the other hand, denied the allegation that she failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of her co-defendant. She argued that her co-defendant was a holder of a professional driver’s license, and had no previous bad record concerning violation of traffic rules and regulations.
The Ruling of the RTC
On April 8, 2005, the Regional Trial Court rendered its judgment1 finding the negligence and careless driving of defendant-appellant Rodolfo Pagala, Jr. as the proximate cause of the collision between the passenger jeepney and the bicycle. Thus, the dispositive portion of the judgment reads:
“WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and in solidum to pay:
- The sum of P367,024,60 as actual and compensatory damages evidenced by Exhibit ‘C’ and Exhibit ‘C-1’ to Exhibit ‘C-337’ bunches of receipts for the medical expenses of plaintiff incurred from January 1999 to January 1, 2000;
- For moral damages suffered by plaintiff, to pay the sum of P50,000.00;
- For Attorney’s fees rendered by plaintiff’s counsel due to the unjustified refusal of defendants to pay the just claims of plaintiff, to pay the sum of P30,000.00;
- To pay an exemplary damages for defendants’ bad faith in their refusal to answer for all the damages incurred by the plaintiff to serve as an example to the public, the sum of P30,000.00 and;
- To pay the cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.”
The Issues
Thus, the instant appeal where defendants-appellants raise the following issues:
- Whether or not defendant-appellant Rodolfo Pagala, Jr. was at fault or was negligent in driving his jeepney;
- Whether or not defendant-appellant Agnes de Jesus failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of her employee, driver Rodolfo Pagala, Jr.;
- Whether or not the award of damages has factual and legal bases.
This Court’s Ruling
After due study, this Court finds the instant appeal bereft of merit.
First Issue:
Liability of Defendant-Appellant Pagala, Jr.
In assailing the RTC’s resolution of the suit for damages, herein defendants-appellants argue that Pagala, Jr. did not act negligently in the operation of the passenger jeepney. Prior to the collision, Pagala, Jr. was allegedly driving the jeepney at a moderate speed and with due regard to traffic rules and regulations. They insist that the proximate cause of the accident was the fault of plaintiff-appellee Mariano in encroaching upon the lane of the jeepney.
We are not persuaded.
Case law has it that the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the collective testimonies of the witnesses, its assessment of the probative weight of the evidence of the parties as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect.2 Unless the trial court clearly overlooked certain facts of substance of value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, the findings of the trial court are to be respected.
This Court’s perusal of the records of the case reveals that no such error was committed by the trial court. Firstly, the finding that the fault and gross negligence of defendant-appellant Pagala, Jr. was the proximate cause of the injuries sustained by plaintiff-appellee Mariano during the accident is supported by evidence.
Plaintiff-appellee categorically narrated in court how the collision between the passenger jeepney and the bicycle transpired. On January 2, 1999, at about 7:30 in the morning, he was driving a bicycle towards Victoria, Tarlac when his bicycle was bumped by the jeepney being driven by defendant-appellant Pagala, Jr. He was then at the edge/right side of the lane going to the direction of Victoria when the speeding passenger jeepney coming from the opposite direction hit him. As a result of the impact, he was thrown off the bicycle, became unconscious and suffered injuries on his right thigh and knee. He was brought to the Central Luzon Doctors Hospital, then to the Orthopedic Hospital for medical treatment. The medical certificates and receipts covering the medical expenses were presented and offered in evidence before the trial court. Plaintiff-appellee, a farmer, was also unable to work during the period of his medication.
The allegations of the plaintiff-appellee were corroborated on material points by witness Liberado Pascual, an eyewitness to the collision. Pascual further testified that the jeepney being driven by Pagala, Jr. was running very fast. The jeepney tried to avoid a pothole or a crack on the highway and in doing so, it encroached the other lane and hit the bicycle of Mariano.
Plaintiff-appellee’s account of the accident deserves more credence as against the bare and uncorroborated testimony of defendant-appellant Pagala, Jr. as to the cause of the accident. The inconsistencies in the testimony of witness Pascual referred to by the defendants-appellants in their appeal brief refer to minor details and thus do not adversely affect the said witness’ and his testimony’s credibility.
The foregoing considered, the trial court did not commit a reversible error in ruling that herein defendant-appellant Pagala, Jr.’s carelessness and reckless driving was the cause of the collision, and in holding Pagala, Jr. liable for the damages sustained by the plaintiff-appellee. The collision would not have occurred if defendant-appellant Pagala, Jr. did not encroach upon the other lane without first ensuring that there was no incoming vehicle from the said lane. Article 2176 of the New Civil Code provides that “whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.”
Second Issue:
Liability of Defendant-Appellant De Jesus
Defendant-appellant Agnes De Jesus, the employer of defendant-appellant Pagala, Jr. and the person under whose name the passenger jeepney is registered, is equally liable under the law for the damages caused to the plaintiff-appellee. Article 2180 of the New Civil Code provides that the obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. This responsibility shall cease only when such employers prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
In the case of Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. v. C & A Construction, Inc.3, the Supreme Court explained that whenever an employee’s negligence causes damage or injury to another, there instantly arises a presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the selection (culpa in eligiendo) or supervision (culpa in vigilando) of its employees. To avoid liability for a quasi-delict committed by his employee, an employer must overcome the presumption by presenting convincing proof that he exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee.
Defendant-appellant De Jesus’ claim that she first ensured that her co-defendant was a licensed driver and had a good background in terms of driving and adherence to traffic laws and regulations prior to his employ is clearly insufficient to support her release from any liability. The law provides that due diligence in both the selection and supervision of the employee must be proved through convincing proof. Due diligence in supervision requires the formulation of rules and regulations for the guidance of employees and the issuance of proper instructions as well as actual implementation and monitoring of consistent compliance with the rules.4 Since there is no showing in the instant case that defendant-appellant De Jesus exercised such diligence required of her under the law, she should be held liable for the negligent act of her employee Pagala, Jr.
Third Issue:
Award of Damages
Finally, defendants-appellants question the RTC’s award of P367,024.00 as actual damages for allegedly being unconscionable and unsubstantiated by evidence. The contention is without merit.
Contrary to the allegation of the defendants-appellants, medical certificates were presented by the plaintiff-appellee to prove the medical treatment he had to go through as a result of the injuries he sustained during the accident. Exhibits “A” and “B”5 submitted in court explain the extent of the injury sustained by the plaintiff-appellee, to wit—
“Vehicular Accident with the following injuries:
-Severe cerebral contusion and concussion
(Ctscan of head; parenckymal contusion hemorrhages, with edema and suggestion uncal heriation
-Fracture comminuted compound, femur dital 3rd, right
-Fracture, patela, right
Condition on the date attended: Very serious”6
As per medical certificate7 dated March 23, 1999 issued by Dr. Benjamin Paz of the Central Luzon Doctors’ Hospital, patient Mariano was transferred to the National Orthopedic Hospital, evidently for medical treatment.
The defendants-appellants’ argument that the receipts supporting plaintiff-appellee’s claim for damages were not properly identified in court is misplaced. In an Order8 dated May 23, 2001, the trial court held—
“When this case was called, Atty. Millo intended to recall the witness to identify the receipts which were issued in connection with the medical treatment. However, Atty. Bermudez admitted the execution and issuance of the said documents without, however, admitting that the amount stated therein was really spent by the complainant.
“WHEREFORE, the receipts will be subject for the evaluation of the Court as to the [probative] value. x x x”
On November 19, 2003, the medical certificates and receipts were formally offered in evidence. For failure of the defendants-appellants to present sufficient and convincing proof that the amounts stated in the receipts admitted by the trial court were not actually spent by the plaintiff-appellee, this Court finds no cogent reason to modify the trial court’s award of actual damages.
Defendants-appellants do not specifically dispute in their appeal brief the award of moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit. Nonetheless, this Court holds that in light of the applicable provisions of the New Civil Code, no error was committed by the trial court in granting such awards.
Article 2219 of the New Civil Code expressly provides that moral damages may be recovered in actions for quasi-delicts causing physical injuries. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury sustained by the victim. In the instant case, plaintiff-appellee Mariano testified in court how, even long after the accident, he still feels the pain brought about by the accident. He can no longer perform his work as a farmer because of the injuries he sustained from the collision.9
Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are justified where the defendants in quasi-delict cases acted with gross negligence.10 These are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. We have discussed fully well how the carelessness and reckless driving of defendant-appellant Pagala, Jr. resulted in the collision between the jeepney and the bicycle. Moreover, the adamant refusal of the defendants-appellants to pay the clearly just claims of the plaintiff-appellee compelled the latter to litigate. Article 2208 of the New Civil Code provides that attorney’s fees and costs can be recovered when the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to incur expenses to protect his interest.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 64 of Tarlac City in Civil Case No. 9021 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Sundiam, and Librea-Leagogo, JJ., concur.
1 Records, p. 470.
2 People v. Sibonga, 404 SCRA 10 (2003).
3 412 SCRA 524 (2003).
4 Fabre, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 259 SCRA 426 (1996).
5 Records, pp. 34-35.
6 Id. at 34.
7 Id. at 35.
8 Id. at 376.
9 T.S.N., March 21, 2001, p. 13.
10 Article 2231, New Civil Code