G.R. No. L-13541. January 28, 1961
EDUARDO TUASON, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT VS. LUZON STEVEDORING CO., INC., AND JULIAN RAMOS, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.
GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:
in a 1952 model Packard car, with three passengers, namely, Olivia de
Leon, Francisco de Leon and Manuel de Leon. He passed the Kennon Road
Checkpoint at 3:00 o’clock and winged on his way passing the National
Toll Road, Camp 6 Toll Gate, 24 minutes later. After paying the toll,
he continued slashing through the early morning air so that 5:00
o’clock of that same morning he arrived at a town in Tarlac. There he
stopped at a gasoline station to fill up his car’s gasoline tank. This
took about 15 to 20 minutes. Thereafter, he continued his drive for
Manila.
At about the same time Eduardo Tuason left Bagnio
City, Julian Ramos, an employee of the Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc.,
together with a mechanic, Graciano Bautista, and a laborer, Zoilo
Tolentino, left the Company’s compound at Guagua, Pampanga, driving one
of its trucktrailers for Manaoag, Pangasinan. They passed through the
towns of Bacolor, San Fernando, Angeles, Mabalacat, of the province of
Pampanga. When they reached the municipality of Bamban, Tarlac, the
truck developed some engine trouble. The mechanic, Graciano Bautista,
had to clean the carburetor and the gasoline line, which took him about
25 to 30 minutes to finish. Afterwards they proceeded on their way.
At around 5:10 o’clock that same morning at about 75 meters south of
the bridge at barrio Cut-Cut of the municipality of Capas, Tarlac, the
Packard car driven by Eduardo Tuason and the truck-trailer driven by
Julian Ramos collided. As a result of the collision, Eduardo Tuason’s
left leg was pinned down by the door of his car. After he was
extricated from his seat, he was taken to the clinic of Dr. Pineda at
Capas, and later, on that same day, brought to the National Orthopedic
Hospital in Manila. His companions in the car, who were also injured
were, likewise, taken to the clinic at Capas.
On February
22, 1956, or after almost three years from the date of the collision,
Eduardo Tuason filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila a
complaint against the Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc., and Julian Ramos for
the recovery of damages suffered by him as a result of the collision
above referred to. The complaint alleges, among other things, that
plaintiff was driving at a moderate speed—35 to 40 kilometers per
hour—with headlights on, when the truck-trailer driven by the defendant
Julian Ramos struck his car; that the collision completely wrecked
plaintiff’s car and caused serious physical injuries to him and his
companions; and that defendant Julian Ramos was then driving recklessly
and negligently at a high rate of speed. Plaintiff, therefore, claims
and prays for actual and compensatory damages in the sum of P200,000,
moral damages in the amount of P25,000, and exemplary or corrective
damages in the sum of P25,000, plus attorney’s fees.
The
defendants, in their separate answers, denied any liability for
damages, alleging by way of special defenses that the truck trailer
driven by the defendant Julian Ramos was travelling at low-speed, with
lights on, along the right side of the road when it was hit by the
Packard car driven by plaintiff recklessly and negligently at a high
speed; that after the accident, both plaintiff and defendant Julian
Ramos were charged criminally before the Justice of the Peace Court of
Capas, Tarlac, and upon the case being forwarded to the Court of First
Instance of the same province, the information as against the defendant
Julian Ramos was dismissed; and that the collision was due to the fault
and negligence of plaintiff as defendant Julian Ramos exercised due
care and diligence in the performance of his duties as driver of the
truck-trailer. The defendant company, in addition, alleged that it
exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of Julian as its driver.
At the
trial, both parties presented testimonial and documentary evidence.
Finding the evidence adduced by plaintiff and his witnesses to be
contradictory and unworthy of belief, and holding that plaintiff was
travelling at a very high speed and on the wrong side of the road, that
is to say, on the left lane facing south, while the truck-trailer
driven by the defendant Julian Ramos was travelling at a moderate speed
and was almost at a stop before the collision, the trial court, on
January 9, 1958, rendered decision, the dispositive part of which reads:
“WHEREFORE,
THE Court finds the plaintiff Eduardo Tuason, solely and wholly
responsible for the collision which occurred on April 13, 1953, subject
matter of the present case, and absolves the defendants Julian Ramos
and Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc., from any liability or responsibility
in connection therewith. The court hereby orders plaintiff’s claims
against the defendants dismissed with costs against the plaintiff.”
From this decision, the plaintiff appealed directly to this Court.
After going over the record, we find no reason for rejecting the
findings of fact below, justifying the dismissal of plaintiff’s claim
for damages. The issue being one of credibility, the question of which
testimony should be given more credence is best left to the trial
judge, who had the advantage of hearing the parties testify and of
observing their demeanor on the witness stand.
Briefly
stated, plaintiff’s version is that while he was driving his new
Packard car along the right lane of the road, with lights on and
blowing his horn, at a curve about 75 meters south of the bridge in
Barrio Cut-Cut, of the municipality of Capas, Tarlac, his car collided
with the truck-trailer of the Luzon Stevedoring Company driven without
any lights by defendant Julian Ramos; that the collision took place at
the middle of the road; that as a result thereof; the two vehicles
became attached to and entangled with one another; that the people who
were attracted to the scene of the collision had to separate the
automobile from the truck-trailer before they could extricate plaintiff
from the driver’s seat of his car; and that to separate the two
vehicles the truck-trailer had to move backwards, with the use of its
own power, dragging the automobile, which after being separated from
the truck-trailer was also moved backwards.
In support of
his complaint, plaintiff himself testified. He contradicted himself,
however, in some particulars, and admitted that he was in extreme pain
after the collision—and, indeed, must have been unconscious—so that he
could not have observed the details of the accident. Considering the
other circumstances of the case, which shall hereafter be discussed, we
think the trial court was justified in resolving his testimony against
him.
Manuel de Leon, one of plaintiff’s companions in the
car, in an effort to corroborate plaintiff’s version and theory of the
case, also took the witness stand. The lower court, however, noted from
his testimony and demeanor that he was not at all clear about the
special circumstances and important details of the accident which an
eye-witness would normally notice, recall and remember. He could not,
for instance, tell “who moved the trailer nor whether it was moved on
its own power or pushed by the people around; he could not even tell or
recall on what part of the road the Packard car was. Moreover, this
witness could not even recall how wide Cut-Cut bridge is or whether two
vehicles could meet and pass each other, safely over the bridge; he
could, likewise, not recall whether there were shoulders and ditches on
both sides of the Road at the scene of the collision.” Explaining his
unreliability as a witness, the trial court made the following
observations:
“In the mind of the court,
this witness was in a state of shock and light-headed after he
recovered consciousness and, as he admitted that he was unconscious for
30 minutes after the collision, he could not to have seen anything’
that was done during his state of unconsciousness nor afterwards. The
court is convinced that Manuel de Leon was merely accommodating the
plaintiff, his friend, when he testified for the reason that he was
neither clear nor positive as to his testimony.”
Alberto Yandan, a resident of Barrio Cut-Cut, Capas, Tarlac, at the
time of the accident, testifying for the plaintiff claims that he saw
the collision. He declared, among other things, that he ordered the
truck to be moved backward; and that it took thirty minutes to take
plaintiff out of the car. He disclaimed knowledge, however, of the
identity of the person who moved the truck. It also appears that he was
investigated by the police of Capas at 10:00 a.m. of the day of the
collision in the presence of the chief of police and the Justice of the
Peace. In that investigation, which was later reduced to writing, sworn
to and signed by him before the Justice of the Peace, he
declared—contrary to his testimony in court—that he was in his house
when he heard a crash; that he immediately went downstairs and found
that the crash was caused by a collision between a truck and a car;
that the driver of the car was badly injured and its three occupants
suffered minor injuries; that the car was wrecked while the truck was
only slightly damaged; and that he brought one of the injured to the
clinic of Dr. Pineda at Capas. He was asked three times in the course
of the investigation whether or not he had anything more to say in
connection with the collision and in like number of times he answered
“no more, sir.” For this reason, the trial court found it difficult to
believe his testimony and opined that his participation in the matter
of the collision was merely to bring one of the injured to the clinic
of Dr. Pineda at Capas and nothing else. We are inclined to agree with
the lower court, for it has not been explained why he did not, at the
time he was investigated, tell the matters he testified to in court,
when he admittedly was aware that he was being investigated to bring
out everything that he knew of the accident.
Pedro Mallari,
another resident of Barrio Cut-Cut, Capas, likewise, testified for
plaintiff. This witness admitted on direct and cross-examination that
he stayed at the scene of the accident only five minutes, yet he sought
to convince the court of facts which could not have happened, and which
he could not have seen, during the period. Thus, he said that when he
arrived at the scene of the collision, he saw Alberto Yandan, carrying
plaintiff Eduardo Tuason while the three car passengers were still
inside the automobile. This statement is contrary to the testimonies of
plaintiff’s other witnesses, namely, Alberto Yandan and Manuel de Leon,
who declared that the last person taken out of the car was plaintiff
and that it took them some 30 minutes to extricate him from the
driver’s seat. Witness Mallari also declared that plaintiff’s left leg
was pinned down by the left bumper of the truck and that when the truck
was moved back, the leg was still pinned by the bumper. If such were
the case, plaintiff’s leg would have been crushed or severed and he
would not now have possession and use of both legs. Considering these
contradictions and observing that the witness, while testifying, was
restless, nervous and uncomfortable and that he was shifting around and
could not keep his eyes fixed, the trial court entertained grave doubts
concerning the veracity of his testimony. The lower court, we think,
was justified in doing so. Evidence, to be worthy of credit, must not
only proceed from a credible source, but must, in addition, be credible
itself. And by this is meant that it shall be natural, reasonable and
probable as to make it easy to believe.
Examining further
Pedro Mallari’s testimony, we find that there is, indeed, good reason
to believe this witness was never at the scene of the collision. He
stated that he returned from work around 12 noon to take his lunch;
that thereafter he went to the police station of Capas and when he
peeped inside he saw the police investigating Alberto Yandan; that he
did not listen to the investigation but he knew that concerned the
accident which occurred in Barrio Cut-Cut, Capas, that morning; that he
did not volunteer to testify nor made known his presence at the scene
of the collision. His declarations are directly contradicted by those
of Alberto Yandan who testified that he was invests gated at 10:00 a.m.
and that he (Mallari) was inside the police station and present during
the investigation. And had Mallari really been present then, whether
inside or outside “the police station, he would certainly have
volunteered his testimony, having taken the trouble of going to the
police station at the town proper and knowing as he did the subject
matter of the police investigation. But he did not do this and instead
admitted that he testified in this case after he was approached by
Alberto Yandan to do so for plaintiff.
Salvador Baun, chief
of police of the municipality of Capas, was another witness for the
plaintiff. The trial court, however, from his demeanor on the witness
stand and from the long delayed and often evasive answers he gave, was
convinced that he was suppressing and hiding the true facts of the
case. He admitted that he conducted an investigation of the collision
and he testified that in the course of that investigation, he saw
evidence that the Packard car driven by plaintiff swerved from the
middle of the road to the left lane facing south, thus hitting the
truck-trailer. He made such statement in his official report of the
accident (Exh. “1”), and the proof of the swerving of the car as
reported by him were the skid marks of the tires of the car at the
scene of the collision. The record also shows that it was the basis of
his report that the criminal case for physical injuries and damage to
property thru reckless imprudence filed against both plaintiff and
defendant Julian Ramos was dismissed as against the latter. The
dismissal was made upon motion of the Provincial Fiscal on the ground
that “during a reinvestigation of the case, and as can be seen from the
sketch attached to the record prepared by the Chief of Police of Capas,
Tarlac, the driver of the truck-trailer, Julian Ramos, the accused,
tried his best to avoid the incident; that it is the other driver,
Eduardo Tuason, who was at fault in causing the collision; and that the
prosecution has no evidence to sustain any criminal action against
Julian Ramos.”
The evidence for the defendants, on the other
hand, showed that the truck-trailer driven by Julian Ramos covered the
distance of 50.89 kilometers between Guagua, Pampanga, and Cut-Cut
bridge, Capas, Tarlac, in 2 hours and 10 minutes. Subtracting the 30
minutes consumed in fixing the engine trouble that developed on the
way, the travelling time was, therefore, 1 hour and 40 minutes. This
shows that the truck-trailer ran at an average speed of 30 kilometers
per hour on the national highway from Guagua Pampanga, to Cut-Cut
bridge, Capas, Tarlac. Upon the other hand, plaintiff drove his car
from Baguio City to Cut-Cut bridge in Capas, a distance of 144.22
kilometers, in 2 hours and 10 minutes. Deducting the maximum of 20
minutes it took him to load up gasoline, that leaves a travelling time
of 1 hour and 50 minutes. As correctly found by the court below, it is
evident from the above facts, which are not disputed, that plaintiff
drove his car at great speed and in excess of the speed limits along
the national highway.
Plaintiff claims that the
truck-trailer, which weighed 10 tons, was travelling at the rate of 60
kilometers per hour when the collision occurred, but if such were the
case the car he was driving would have been sent flying, or at least,
carried and pushed back by virtue of the truck’s momentum and weight.
There were, however, no indications on the surface of the road at the
scene of the collision showing that the Packard car was carried and
dragged by the truck-trailer. Indeed, none of the witnesses testified
to this fact. On the contrary, Salvador, Baun, chief of police, and
Jesus Baluyot, patrolman, both of Capas, and other witnesses for the
defendants testified that the skid marks present at the scene of the
collision were those made by the tires of the Packard car. No skid
marks made by the tires of the truck-trailer existed or were present at
the scene of the collision.
The evidence for the defendants
also showed that at the time of the collision, the truck-trailer was on
the right lane of the road facing north with the right front wheel of
the truck on the shoulder of the road about six inches from the ditch
on the right side and that the Packard car was on the left lane of the
road going south towards Pampanga. These facts were testified to by the
defendant Julian Ramos. his mechanic, Graciano Bautista, Jesus Baluyot
and Paciano Atienza, both members of the police force of Capas, Mariano
Nacpil, a farmer and civilian guard residing in Barrio Cut-Cut, and
others. Policeman Jesus Baluyot, at the time of the collision, drew a
sketch (Exh. 1-A) showing the relative positions of the vehicles, which
piece of evidence became the basis of the chief of police’s report but
which he tried to suppress at the trial of the case. Regarding the
testimony of defendants’ witnesses, the trial court said—
“The
court has observed the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses for the
defendants, and noted that they testified in a straightforward manner
Indicating that they know the subject matter of their testimonies and
that they were testifying on facts and circumstances of their own
personal knowledge. Defendant Julian Ramos was lengthily cross-examined
and there was no divergence in his testimony. Likewise, the mechanic
Graciano Bautista, was clear and explicit in his narration of facts.
The witnesses for the defendants, Jesus Baluyot and Paciano Atienza,
are members of the police force of the Municipality of Capas and they
testified on facts and circumstances surrounding the collision between
the two vehicles, which they gathered in the course of their official
investigation. There is no reason for the court to doubt the testimony
of these police officers considering the official positions and the
fact that they testified on matters gathered in the performance of
their official duties. Moreover, they submitted a report of their
investigation to their Chief of Police. Arturo Cabrera, another witness
for the defendants is a government employee who testified in regard to
his own personal knowledge of the collision in question. He stated that
after viewing the scene of the collision and noting that the Packard
car involved therein was a hazard to traffic, he telephoned a report to
his superior, the District Engineer of Tarlac that he was able to talk
to Mr. Epifanio Panopio, Maintenance Engineer who personally viewed the
scene of the collision; that after the investigation being conducted by
the Police was through he caused the Packard car to be removed upon the
instruction of Engineer Panopio. Again, there is no reason for the
court to doubt the testimony of this witness. Mariano Nacpil is an old
man and a farmer. His demeanor in court was that of a witness
testifying to the truth. As a matter of fact, Mariano Nacpil signed a
sworn statement, Exh. ‘8’ before the Chief of Police and Justice of the
Peace of Capas, Tarlac, on the same day, April 13, 1953, when the
collision occurred. His testimony during the trial conforms with his
sworn statement appearing on Exhibit ‘8’.”
Plaintiff claims that the truck-trailer and the Packard car were linked
together and in order to give room to take plaintiff out of the car,
the truck-trailer was moved back, on its own power, across the line at
the center of the road and stopped on the right lane facing north
carrying the car along with it. The trial court, however, after a close
scrutiny of the evidence adduced, rejected the claim, defendants having
shown to its satisfaction that the truck’s battery and front axle were
damaged, the U-bolt broken, and mudguard stuck to the left front wheel.
The truck-trailer’s weight of ten tons eliminated the possibility of
its having been pushed by the people gathered at the scene of the
collision, so that the trial court believed that it was the Packard car
which was moved back about three feet in order to extricate plaintiff
from his seat, some persons stepping on the bumper of the automobile
while others pushed it away. The defendant Julian Ramos, whose
testimony was found by the court to be credible and straightforward,
testified in this regard. This testimony of defendant Julian Ramos,
contrary to plaintiff’s claim, does not necessarily contradict those of
policemen Jesus Baluyot and Paciano Atienza, who declared that the
vehicles were not moved during their investigation. Apparently, the
vehicles were disengaged before the arrival of the aforenamed
policemen, who had to come yet from the town proper. It would certainly
have been unnatural and cruel for the people who were there to have
waited for them or other authorities before doing anything, considering
that plaintiff was painfully pinned by the door of his car and could
not be extricated without disconnecting the vehicles.
It
might not be amiss to mention here that plaintiffs complaint was filed
only after the lapse of almost three years from the date of the
accident. This, in itself, is indicative of the weakness of plaintiff’s
cause of action. And considering the established fact that said
plaintiff was really the proximate cause of the accident, we find no
valid reason to disturb the decision complained of denying his claim
for damages.
In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against plaintiff-appellant.
Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.