G.R. No. 131541; October 20, 2000
Thermochem Incorporated and Jerome O. Castro, petitioners, vs. Leonora Naval and the Court of Appeals, respondents.

FACTS

On May 10, 1992, a Nissan Pathfinder owned by petitioner Thermochem and driven by petitioner Jerome Castro collided with a taxicab owned by private respondent Leonora Naval along Ortigas Avenue. The taxicab, driven by Eduardo Edem, had just unloaded a passenger, executed a U-turn, and was proceeding towards EDSA when it was struck by the Nissan Pathfinder traveling towards Cainta. The impact was severe, pushing the taxicab into a tailoring shop, damaging the shop, and injuring Edem. Naval filed a damage suit against Thermochem and Castro.
The Regional Trial Court found Castro negligent and held petitioners jointly and severally liable for actual, compensatory, and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review. The Court initially denied the petition for procedural lapses but reinstated it and required private respondent’s comment. Despite service of the resolution, no comment was filed by private respondent’s counsel, who failed to notify the Court of any change of address.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual findings of negligence against petitioner Castro, and what is the effect of private respondent’s failure to file the required comment.

RULING

The petition lacks merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ findings. The issue of negligence is factual, and the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive unless shown to be unsupported by evidence. Here, no significant facts were overlooked. The Court found Castro negligent based on his own admission that he was driving faster than 50 kph on a downhill slope and that his brakes allegedly locked, causing the skid and collision. A sudden brake malfunction does not absolve liability; the driver is presumed responsible for the vehicle’s condition. The taxicab driver was also contributorily liable for making a sudden U-turn, but this does not exonerate Castro.
Regarding procedural matters, the failure of private respondent’s counsel to file a comment and to inform the Court of an address change constitutes willful disobedience to a lawful order, a violation of professional ethics. Under the Rules, the Court may decide the case based on the evidence on record when a respondent fails to comment, deeming it submitted for decision. Consequently, the Court proceeded to resolve the petition on its merits, upholding the lower courts’ joint and several liability ruling against petitioners.