GR 163078; (November, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 163078 ; November 25, 2009
STEPHEN CANG and GEORGE NARDO y JOSOL, Petitioners, vs. HERMINIA CULLEN, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Herminia Cullen filed a complaint for damages against petitioners Stephen Cang, the owner of a taxicab, and George Nardo, its driver, following a vehicular accident. The accident involved the taxicab and a motorcycle owned by Cullen and driven by her employee, Guillermo Saycon. Cullen alleged that Nardo, driving the taxi on the inner lane of P. del Rosario Street in Cebu City, veered to the right, sideswiped the motorcycle which was on the outer lane, and attempted to speed away. This resulted in serious injuries to Saycon, for whom Cullen advanced hospital expenses and wage equivalents.
Petitioners presented a contrary version, claiming the motorcycle bumped the rear of the taxi while Nardo was properly slowing down in the inner lane. They asserted Nardo did not flee but was instructed by traffic enforcers to bring Saycon to the hospital. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed Cullen’s complaint, finding petitioners’ account more credible. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, giving credence to the testimony of an eyewitness for Cullen and holding Nardo negligent for overtaking and sideswiping the motorcycle, thereby awarding actual and exemplary damages.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s findings of fact and in holding petitioner Nardo negligent.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the RTC decision dismissing the complaint. While the petition raised questions of fact generally beyond the scope of a Rule 45 review, the Court exercised its power to review given the contradictory factual findings between the RTC and the CA. The Court found the CA’s reliance on the eyewitness account of Ike Aldemita to be misplaced.
Aldemita testified he saw the taxi overtake the motorcycle and then sideswipe it. However, the Court noted this testimony was inconsistent with the physical evidence—specifically, the location of the damage on the left rear portion of the taxi and the right front portion of the motorcycle. This damage pattern supported Nardo’s claim that the motorcycle, coming from behind and to the right, bumped the taxi, not that the taxi overtook and sideswiped it. The CA’s conclusion was grounded on speculation contrary to the physical evidence. Furthermore, the CA failed to consider that the taxi was in its proper lane and slowing down, while the motorcycle driver may have been negligent for driving without a helmet and with only a student’s permit. The burden of proof to establish Nardo’s negligence was not successfully discharged by respondent Cullen.