G.R. No. 141089 , August 1, 2002
METRO MANILA TRANSIT CORPORATION and APOLINARIO AJOC, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and COL. MARTIN P. SABALBURO, NAPOLEON G. SABALBURO, MARTIN G. SABALBURO, JR., BABY MARIFLOR G. SABALBURO, and MIRASOL G. SABALBURO, respondents.

FACTS

On the afternoon of December 24, 1986, Florentina Sabalburo and two companions were standing on the island at the intersection of St. Andrews Street (Andrew Avenue) and Domestic Road in Pasay City, waiting for the traffic light to change so they could cross the street to take a ride to Baclaran. When the traffic light turned red and vehicles had stopped, they began to cross. At that moment, an MMTC bus driven by Apolinario Ajoc, coming from their right (Tramo) and moving at a fast speed, hit Florentina on the right side of her head with its left front portion. The impact severed her right ear, and she fell unconscious. She was brought to the hospital but never regained consciousness, succumbing to her injuries on January 3, 1987. The victim’s heirs (private respondents) filed a complaint for damages against MMTC and Ajoc. Petitioners denied liability, claiming the accident was solely due to the victim’s negligence, alleging she suddenly darted across the road from a position obscured from the driver’s view by a stationary truck. The trial court found petitioners liable and awarded damages, a decision affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether Article 2179 of the Civil Code, as an exception to Article 2176, is applicable in this case, such that the victim’s own negligence was the direct and proximate cause of her injury, barring or mitigating recovery of damages.

RULING

No, Article 2179 is not applicable; Article 2176 governs. The Supreme Court held that the issue of negligence is a question of fact, and the findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive. The records support the finding that the MMTC bus was being driven carelessly, with Ajoc trying to beat the red light, and that his failure to see the victim proved his recklessness. The Court rejected petitioners’ claim that the victim was negligent because her mind was preoccupied with Noche Buena preparations as pure conjecture without proof. The immediate and proximate cause of the victim’s death was the negligent driving of petitioner Ajoc. Furthermore, the Court upheld the solidary liability of MMTC with its driver under Article 2180, as the employer failed to rebut the presumption of negligence in the selection and supervision of its employee by presenting convincing proof of having exercised the diligence of a good father of a family. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.