Rebultan v. Daganta

Rebultan v. Daganta, 

G.R. No. 197908, 

July 4, 2018

DOCTRINE:

-In Interpreting Section 42 (a) and (b) of R.A. No. 4136, we clearly said in Caminos, Jr.

that the vehicle making a turn to the left is under the duty to yield to the vehicle

approaching from the opposite lane on the right: The provision [Section 42 (a) and (b) of

R.A. No. 4136] governs the situation when two vehicles approach the intersection from

the same direction and one of them intends [to] make a turn on either side of the road.

But the rule embodied in the said provision, also prevalent in traffic statutes in the United

States, has also been liberally applied to a situation in which two vehicles approach an

intersection from directly opposite directions at approximately the same time on the same

street and one of them attempts to make a left-hand turn into the intersecting street, so

as to put the other upon his right, the vehicle making the turn being under the duty of

yielding to the other.

-A well-recognized principle of law that the negligence of a driver, who, in turn, is guilty of

contributory negligence, cannot be imputed to a passenger who has no control over him

in the management of the vehicle and with whom he sustains no relation of master and

servant. This rule is applied more strictly when, as in the present case, hired cars or those

engaged in public service, are involved.

FACTS:

Cecilio Rebultan Sr. (Rebultan Sr.) and his driver Jaime Lomotos (Lomotos) were

on board a KIA Ceres, on their way to their work in DENR Zambales. On the way to their

work, they figured in a vehicular accident with an Isuzu-powered passenger jeepney

driven by Willie Viloria (Viloria). The KIA ceres was traveling northbound to Iba, Zambales,

while the jeepney was traveling Southbound to Cabangan, Zambales. The powerful

impact resulted in serious physical injuries to Rebultan, Sr. and Lomotos, as well as

physical damage to both vehicles. Rebultan, Sr., who was 60 years old at that time, later

died from his injuries.

Thereafter, the heirs of Rebultan Sr. filed a complaint for damages against Viloria

and Spouses Edmundo and Marvelyn Daganta ( the owners of jeepney). The heirs prayed

for compensation for the loss life and earning of Rebultan Sr. including actual and moral

damages, plus attorney’s fees and appearance fees and other equitable relief. The

defendant filed its counterclaim arguing that the driver of KIA Ceres, Lomotos was

negligent and he should be the one who should be responsible for the death of Rebultan

Sr. Respondents also claim for damages to the jeepney and loss of income of Viloria.

Thereafter, the RTC ruled against the respondent and finds Viloria negligent that led to

the death of Rebultan Sr. Likewise, Spouses Daganta were found vicariously liable as

employer of Viloria. The RTC concluded that Viloria's continuous driving even when

turning left going to a street is the proximate cause of the accident. It dismissed the thirdparty

complaint against Lomotos. The respondents appealed before the CA but only as

to the finding of negligence on the part of Viloria. They no longer appealed the dismissal

of the third-party complaint.

The CA reversed the RTC ruling and dismissed the complaint. It ruled that it was

Lomotos (not Viloria) who was negligent. Under Section 42 (a) and (b), Article III, Chapter

IV of Republic Act No. 4136 20 (R.A. No. 4136), Viloria had the right of way, being the

driver of the vehicle on the right, and because he had already turned towards the left of

the intersection. This, according to the CA, is the import of the ruling in Caminos, Jr. v.

People which it found squarely applicable to this case. It held that Lomotos, being in

violation of a traffic regulation, is presumed to be negligent under Article 2185 of the Civil

Code. There being no negligence on the part of Viloria, the spouses Daganta's vicarious

liability cannot be imposed. The CA noted that while respondents filed a third-party

complaint against Lomotos, it cannot reverse its dismissal because respondents did not

appeal the same. The CA likewise denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

Hence, petitioners elevated the case before the Supreme Court arguing that Viloria made

conflicting testimony that he had yet made a left turn toward barangay road and that

Viloria was racing a mini-bus and abrubtly swerved to the left as evidenced by Traffic

Accident Report No. 99002 28 dated May 3, 1999.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Viloria was negligent in driving the jeepney at the time of the collision.

HELD:

Yes. All motorists are expected to exercise reasonable caution in operating his

vehicle. In interpreting Section 42 (a) and (b) of R.A. No. 4136, we clearly said in

Caminos, Jr. that the vehicle making a turn to the left is under the duty to yield to the

vehicle approaching from the opposite lane on the right: The provision [Section 42 (a)

and (b) of R.A. No. 4136] governs the situation when two vehicles approach the

intersection from the same direction and one of them intends [to] make a turn on either

side of the road. But the rule embodied in the said provision, also prevalent in traffic

statutes in the United States, has also been liberally applied to a situation in which two

vehicles approach an intersection from directly opposite directions at approximately the

same time on the same street and one of them attempts to make a left-hand turn into

the intersecting street, so as to put the other upon his right, the vehicle making the turn

being under the duty of yielding to the other.

Applying Caminos, Jr., it is apparent that it is the Kia Ceres which had the right of

way. The jeepney driver making a turn on the left had the duty of yielding to the vehicle

on his right, the approaching Kia Ceres driven by Lomotos. Similarly, with Vehicle A in

Caminos, Jr., the jeepney does not have the right of way. Additionally, we do not find

the CA's conclusion that the jeepney was already at the intersection, making him the

favored driver, to be supported by the records. Thus, we find that the CA erred in holding

that it was Viloria, as the jeepney's driver, who had the right of way. Nevertheless, we

still find Lomotos negligent. Similar to Caminos, Jr., records show that Lomotos drove

the Kia Ceres at an unlawful speed. Traffic Accident Report No. 99002 supports that

Lomotos was guilty of "overspeeding," and his error is listed as driving "too fast." This

was corroborated by respondents' witness, Ronald Vivero, who relayed that the Kia

Ceres was approaching fast and that it made a loud screech due to its break which

indicated the high speed at which it approached the intersection. Thus, we affirm the

CA's conclusion that Lomotos was negligent at the time of the collision.

In sum, we hold that both drivers were negligent when they failed to observe basic

traffic rules designed for the safety of their fellow motorists and passengers. This makes

them joint tortfeasors who are solidarily liable to the heirs of the deceased. However,

since the dismissal of the third-party complaint against Lomotos was not appealed by

respondents, and Lomotos is not party to the case before us, we have no authority to

render judgment against him.