G.R. No. 162987 ; May 21, 2009
SOFIA M. GUILLANG, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. RODOLFO BEDANIA and RODOLFO DE SILVA, Respondents.

FACTS

On October 25, 1994, petitioner Genaro Guillang was driving a Toyota Corolla along Emilio Aguinaldo Highway in Cavite. Respondent Rodolfo Bedania, driving a ten-wheeler cargo truck owned by respondent Rodolfo de Silva, negotiated a U-turn along the highway. Genaro’s car collided with the right portion of the truck, resulting in severe injuries to the car’s passengers and the eventual death of Antero Guillang. The car was totaled. Petitioners, including the heirs of Antero, filed a complaint for damages based on quasi-delict against respondents.
The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of petitioners, finding Bedania grossly negligent for making a sudden U-turn without signal lights and in violation of traffic rules. It also held de Silva, as employer, vicariously liable, having failed to prove he exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in selecting and supervising Bedania. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, dismissing the complaint. It found that the physical evidence and circumstances, including the wide, straight, and unobstructed highway, indicated that Genaro was also negligent for failing to avoid the collision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s finding of gross negligence on the part of respondent Bedania and in absolving respondents of liability for damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reinstating the trial court’s decision. It held that Bedania was grossly negligent. The legal logic centered on the violation of traffic rules and the doctrine of last clear chance. Bedania, driving a large truck, made a sudden U-turn on a highway without using signal lights, in direct violation of traffic regulations. This unlawful act created an immediate hazard and was the proximate cause of the collision. The Court emphasized that a U-turn by a large vehicle on a highway is unexpected and requires extreme caution, which Bedania failed to exercise.
Contrary to the appellate court’s finding, Genaro’s failure to avoid the accident did not constitute contributory negligence that would bar recovery. Applying the doctrine of last clear chance, the Court ruled that Bedania, having created a dangerous situation through his illegal maneuver, had the last clear opportunity to avoid the harm but failed to do so. His gross negligence rendered him solely liable. Consequently, de Silva, as employer, was held solidarily liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, having failed to rebut the presumption of negligence in the selection and supervision of his driver. Respondents were thus jointly and severally liable for damages.