GR 120874; (July, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 120874 ; July 31, 2003
NAPOLEON TUGADE, SR., et al., Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PANGASINAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Respondents.
FACTS
On June 12, 1980, a Panelco rover jeep carrying five employees, including Engr. Henry Tugade, was traveling from Bani to Bolinao, Pangasinan. A Dagupan bus began following and attempted to overtake the jeep. During this maneuver, the jeep turned turtle, ejecting four occupants and resulting in the deaths of Henry Tugade and another passenger. The heirs of Tugade filed a damages suit against both Panelco (and its driver) and Dagupan Bus Co. (and its driver) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
The RTC dismissed the case against Dagupan Bus Co., absolving it of negligence. It found Panelco and its driver solely liable, ruling that the accident was caused by the mechanical defect and unroadworthy condition of the Panelco jeep, which was zigzagging before it overturned, and by the driver’s negligence in operating such a vehicle. The court awarded damages to the Tugade heirs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s findings of fact which held Panelco solely liable for the accident and consequent damages.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed decision. While the Court is not a trier of facts, it may review factual findings when the lower courts’ conclusions are grounded entirely on speculation or are based on a misapprehension of facts. Here, the Court found no reason to deviate from the consistent findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals. The RTC’s conclusion was amply supported by the evidence, particularly the credible testimony of a disinterested bus passenger who witnessed the jeep zigzagging and overturning without being hit by the bus. This testimony, coupled with the admission of Panelco’s own driver and witness regarding the jeep’s age and pre-accident repairs, substantiated the finding of a mechanical defect.
The Court upheld the legal logic that Panelco, as the employer and vehicle owner, was negligent under the principle of respondeat superior. It failed in its duty to ensure the roadworthiness of its vehicle, and its driver was negligent in operating a defective jeep. This direct negligence was the proximate cause of the accident, not the bus’s attempt to overtake. The awards for loss of earning capacity, actual, moral, and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees were sustained as being in accordance with law and jurisprudence, being based on the evidence presented and the factual circumstances of the case.