G.R. No. 218014 , December 07, 2016
Eddie Cortel y Carna and Yellow Bus Line, Inc., Petitioners, vs. Cecile Gepaya-Lim, Respondent.

FACTS

On October 29, 2004, petitioner Eddie Cortel, driving a bus owned by petitioner Yellow Bus Line, Inc., was traversing a highway in South Cotabato. Cortel claimed he reduced his speed to 20 kph upon seeing two oncoming trucks with glaring headlights. Despite this, his bus hit a black motorcycle ridden by SPO3 Robert Lim from behind, dragging it three meters. Lim was thrown upward, slammed into the bus, and died. Cortel left the scene, later surrendering at a bus station, claiming he feared for his life. Respondent Cecile Gepaya-Lim, Lim’s widow, filed a complaint for damages.
The trial court found Cortel at fault, ruling the accident was the proximate cause of Lim’s death and that Yellow Bus Line failed to prove it exercised due diligence in Cortel’s selection and supervision. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. It found the vehicles were traveling in the same direction and lane, and such collisions do not normally occur absent negligence. It also upheld the finding that Yellow Bus Line failed to prove its defense of due diligence.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly held petitioners jointly and severally liable for damages arising from the death of SPO3 Robert Lim.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the liability. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was correctly applied. The undisputed facts—that the bus, a larger vehicle under Cortel’s exclusive control, collided with the motorcycle from behind on an open highway—create an inference of negligence on the part of the bus driver. Petitioners failed to rebut this presumption. Cortel’s claim of slow speed was belied by the violent impact that threw Lim’s body upward and caused significant damage to both vehicles. Allegations that the motorcycle was black or that Lim wore a black jacket do not establish contributory negligence, as these are not traffic violations.
Regarding Yellow Bus Line’s vicarious liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the employer failed to overcome the presumption of negligence in the selection and supervision of its employee. The seminar certificates it belatedly presented were not formally offered in evidence and were thus inadmissible. Without proof of having exercised the diligence of a good father of a family, the employer is solidarily liable with its driver. The Court modified the awarded amounts, computing loss of earning capacity using the standard formula (Net Earning Capacity = [2/3 (80 – age at death)] x [Gross Annual Income – Living Expenses (50% of GAI)]), and imposed interest at 6% per annum from the finality of judgment until full payment.