G.R. No. 173180 ; August 24, 2011
ALBERT TISON and CLAUDIO L. JABON, Petitioners, vs. SPS. GREGORIO POMASIN and CONSORCIA PONCE POMASIN, DIANNE POMASIN PAGUNSAN, CYNTHIA POMASIN, SONIA PEROL, ANTONIO SESISTA, GINA SESISTA, and REYNALDO SESISTA, Respondents.

FACTS

On August 12, 1994, a vehicular accident occurred along Maharlika Highway in Polangui, Albay, involving a jitney driven by Laarni Pomasin and a tractor-trailer driven by Claudio Jabon, owned by Albert Tison. The jitney was traveling towards Legaspi City, and the tractor-trailer was heading towards Naga City. Conflicting versions of the incident were presented. Gregorio Pomasin, Laarni’s father and a passenger, testified that the tractor-trailer, while going downhill, encroached on the jitney’s lane, causing the collision. Jabon countered that he saw the jitney fall off the road shoulder, run zigzag towards his truck, and that he swerved to the right to avoid it, but the jitney still hit the left fender of his vehicle. The accident resulted in multiple deaths (including Laarni Pomasin, Andrea Pomasin Pagunsan, Narcisa Pomasin Roncales, Abraham Dionisio Perol, and Annie Jane Pomasin Pagunsan) and injuries to several passengers, including Gregorio and his wife Consorcia. Tison provided financial assistance to the respondents, including ₱200,000.00 to Cynthia Pomasin, who executed an Affidavit of Desistance. Despite this, respondents filed a complaint for damages against petitioners in the RTC of Antipolo, alleging negligence by Jabon. Petitioners claimed Laarni’s negligence was the proximate cause and cited the Affidavit of Desistance. The RTC dismissed the complaint, finding Laarni negligent and upholding the affidavit. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding Jabon negligent for speeding and encroaching on the wrong lane, noting a violation of his driver’s license restriction, and holding Tison liable for failure to prove due diligence in selection and supervision. It also disregarded the Affidavit of Desistance due to lack of written authority from respondents and Cynthia’s alleged confusion.

ISSUE

Who is the negligent party or the party at fault for the vehicular accident?

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals Decision, and reinstated the RTC’s dismissal of the complaint. The Court held that the issue of negligence is factual, and exceptions to the general rule of conclusiveness of the CA’s factual findings apply when its findings contradict those of the trial court. The RTC’s assessment of witness credibility, particularly its finding that Jabon’s testimony was more convincing and reliable than Gregorio’s, was accorded great weight. The Court found no conclusive evidence to support the CA’s inference of Jabon’s speeding or negligence. The violation of a driver’s license restriction alone does not establish negligence as the proximate cause of the accident. The petitioners successfully rebutted the presumption of negligence against them. Furthermore, the Affidavit of Desistance executed by Cynthia Pomasin was deemed valid, as it was shown she was authorized by the respondents to settle, and her claim of confusion was not credible. Thus, the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of Laarni Pomasin, not Claudio Jabon.