GR L 21512; (August, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21512 August 31, 1966
PROSPERO SABIDO and ASER LAGUNDA, petitioners, vs. CARLOS CUSTODIO, BELEN MAKABUHAY CUSTODIO and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
In Barrio Halang, Lumban, Laguna, on June 9, 1955, a Laguna-Tayabas Bus Company (LTB) bus driven by Nicasio Mudales and a six-by-six cargo truck owned by Prospero Sabido and driven by Aser Lagunda met on a road curve while traveling in opposite directions. The LTB bus was full of passengers, and Agripino Custodio was hanging on its left side. The cargo truck sideswiped Agripino Custodio, causing fatal injuries. The trial court and the Court of Appeals found that the LTB driver and conductor were negligent for allowing Custodio to ride in that dangerous manner. They also found petitioner Lagunda negligent for driving at a fast speed while negotiating a sharp curve, not keeping to the right side of the road, and failing to avoid the accident despite seeing the hanging passengers from a distance of 5 to 7 meters, when he could have swerved to the right where there was a shallow canal. The lower courts held the carrier and its driver liable for breach of contract of carriage and petitioners Sabido and Lagunda liable for a quasi-delict, sentencing them all to solidarily indemnify the heirs of Custodio.
ISSUE
1. Whether the death of Agripino Custodio was due exclusively to the negligence of the carrier and its driver.
2. Whether petitioners Sabido and Lagunda were guilty of negligence.
3. Whether petitioners can be held solidarily liable with the carrier and its driver.
RULING
1. No, the death was not due exclusively to the carrier’s negligence. The Court affirmed the findings of fact of the lower courts that both the carrier’s driver and petitioner Lagunda were concurrently negligent. The carrier’s negligence in allowing Custodio to hang on the running board was a proximate cause, but so was Lagunda’s negligence in driving fast on a curve, not keeping to the right, and failing to avoid the accident despite having the last clear chance.
2. Yes, petitioners were guilty of contributory negligence. The Court upheld the factual findings that Lagunda was driving at a considerable speed on a sharp curve and was not close to his right side of the road, which contributed directly to the sideswiping incident. His own testimony that he saw the hanging passengers from 5 to 7 meters away confirmed he had an opportunity to avoid the accident but failed to do so.
3. Yes, petitioners can be held solidarily liable with the carrier and its driver. Although the carrier’s liability arose from breach of contract and petitioners’ liability from a quasi-delict, the concurrent negligent acts of both parties were the direct and proximate cause of a single injury. Where the independent negligent acts of two or more persons combine to cause a single injury, and it is impossible to determine each one’s proportionate contribution, each is responsible for the whole injury. Thus, solidary liability is proper. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.