GR 139875; (December, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 139875 ; December 4, 2000
GREGORIO PESTAÑO and METRO CEBU AUTOBUS CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. Spouses TEOTIMO SUMAYANG and PAZ C. SUMAYANG, respondents.
FACTS
On August 9, 1986, Ananias Sumayang, driving a motorcycle with passenger Manuel Romagos, was hit by a passenger bus owned by Metro Cebu Autobus Corporation and driven by Gregorio Pestaño along a national highway in Tabagon, Cebu. Sumayang signaled a left turn at a junction but was struck by the overtaking bus. Both Sumayang and Romagos died from their injuries. The respondents, parents of Ananias, filed a civil action for damages against Pestaño, Metro Cebu, and its insurer. The trial court consolidated this case with the related criminal case for double homicide through reckless imprudence.
At trial, eyewitness Ignacio Neis and police investigator Pat. Aquilino Dinoy testified that the bus was speeding and struck the motorcycle as it turned left. Pestaño countered that the motorcycle turned suddenly without signal. The trial court found petitioners liable, awarding damages for death indemnity, loss of earning capacity, and burial expenses. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s factual findings on negligence but modified the award for death indemnity.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) whether the factual findings of the lower courts on petitioners’ negligence are binding; (2) whether Metro Cebu could escape liability by proving it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family; and (3) whether the computation of lost earning capacity was correct.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court held that factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive and binding, especially in quasi-delicts where negligence is a question of evidence. The lower courts’ conclusion that Pestaño was negligent in overtaking at a junction was upheld.
On the second issue, the Court ruled Metro Cebu failed to rebut the presumption of negligence in the supervision of its employee. While Metro Cebu presented evidence on driver selection and training, it was shown that Pestaño was allowed to operate a bus with a defective speedometer. This failure in supervision meant Metro Cebu did not exercise the required diligence of a good father of a family under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, making it solidarily liable with its driver.
On the third issue, the Court clarified that the computation for loss of earning capacity must be based on the life expectancy of the deceased, not the heir, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence. The CA correctly applied this principle. Furthermore, the increase in the death indemnity from P30,000 to P50,000 was justified by prevailing jurisprudential adjustments for the declining value of currency, not by the presence of aggravating circumstances. All awards were thus sustained.