G.R. No. 160709; February 23, 2005
NELEN LAMBERT, assisted by her husband, GLENROY ALOYSUIS LAMBERT, petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF RAY CASTILLON, Represented by MARILOU T. CASTILLON and SERGIO LABANG, respondents.

FACTS

On January 13, 1991, Ray Castillon, driving a motorcycle with Sergio Labang as a backrider, figured in a collision with a Tamaraw jeepney owned by petitioner Nelen Lambert and driven by Reynaldo Gamot. The jeepney, traveling in the same direction, made a sudden left turn onto a side road. The accident resulted in Ray’s instantaneous death and injuries to Sergio. The heirs of Ray Castillon filed an action for damages against Lambert.
The Regional Trial Court found both drivers negligent. It ruled that Gamot was negligent for making a sudden left turn without proper signal or precaution. It also found Ray Castillon contributorily negligent for driving at high speed and tailgating the jeepney. The court apportioned liability, holding Lambert liable but reducing the damages by 20% due to Ray’s contributory negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the finding of negligence against petitioner’s driver and the apportionment of liability based on contributory negligence.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the appellate court’s decision with modifications. The Court held that the petition, being one for review under Rule 45, could only raise questions of law. The findings of fact by the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals—that both drivers were negligent—are binding and conclusive. The Court found no cogent reason to disturb these factual conclusions, which were supported by evidence.
On the legal principles, the Court clarified that the “rear-end collision” presumption cited by the petitioner is not absolute. The presumption that a vehicle hitting the rear of another is the negligent party yields to evidence showing otherwise. Here, the evidence established that the jeepney driver’s sudden left turn without warning was the immediate and proximate cause of the collision. However, Ray Castillon’s own negligence—driving at high speed and following too closely—contributed to the accident. Applying Article 2179 of the Civil Code on contributory negligence, the Court modified the award. It increased Ray’s contributory negligence to 50%, thereby reducing petitioner’s liability proportionately. The Court also adjusted the computation of loss of earning capacity to use 50% of gross income as net earnings and deleted the award of attorney’s fees for lack of factual and legal justification.