GR 191703; (March, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 191703; March 12, 2012
CRESENCIO BAÑO AND HEIRS OF AMANCIO ASUMBRADO, Petitioners, vs. BACHELOR EXPRESS, INC./ CERES LINER, INC. and WENIFREDO SALVAÑA, Respondents.
FACTS
On November 6, 1993, respondent Wenifredo Salvaña, driving a bus owned by Bachelor Express/Ceres Liner, attempted to overtake a jeepney while negotiating a blind curve on a descending road in Tagum City. This maneuver caused the bus to intrude into the opposite lane and collide with a dump truck owned by petitioner Cresencio Baño and driven by Amancio Asumbrado, who died from the accident. Petitioners filed a complaint for quasi-delict and damages against respondents, alleging negligence by the bus driver. Respondents defended by claiming a sudden steering wheel malfunction and asserting that the truck driver had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Salvaña’s negligent overtaking on a blind curve to be the proximate cause of the collision. Applying the principle of respondeat superior, it held the employer solidarily liable for damages, having failed to rebut the presumption of negligence in the selection and supervision of its driver. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed liability but modified the awarded damages, deleting exemplary damages for lack of proof of gross negligence and reducing other monetary awards for insufficient evidence.
ISSUE
The core issues were whether the bus driver was grossly negligent and whether the Court of Appeals erred in reducing the damages awarded by the RTC.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s findings with modifications. It upheld the conclusion that Salvaña’s act of overtaking on a blind curve constituted simple negligence, not gross negligence. Gross negligence requires a conscious, willful indifference to consequences, which was not sufficiently established here. However, the Court found the award of exemplary damages warranted under Article 2231 of the Civil Code, as the employer’s failure to overcome the presumption of negligence in supervision qualified as a quasi-delict with an aggravating circumstance.
On the matter of damages, the Court sustained the CA’s recalculation of actual damages, loss of earning capacity, and moral damages for the heirs, as these were based on a more accurate assessment of the evidence. For petitioner Baño, the Court affirmed the substitution of the awards for the truck’s value and lost income with temperate damages, due to the lack of conclusive proof of exact amounts, but adjusted the sums to ₱400,000 and ₱200,000 respectively, considering the vehicle’s total wreckage and the prolonged litigation. Attorney’s fees were also increased to ₱100,000. The final ruling imposed solidary liability on respondents for the modified awards.