GR L 7763; (December, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-7763, December 2, 1957
Honoria Delgado Vda. de Gregorio, et al., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. Go Chong Bing, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Defendant Go Chong Bing owned a truck and employed Francisco Romera as a cargador or driver’s helper. On June 2, 1952, defendant ordered Romera to drive the truck to assist another truck in crossing a flooded river. Romera only possessed a student driver’s permit, not a regular driver’s license. During the trip, a policeman, Venancio Orfanel, took over driving the truck from Romera. While Orfanel was driving, he swerved to avoid a parked truck and, instead of applying the brake as instructed by Romera, accelerated, hitting and killing pedestrian Quirico Gregorio. Orfanel was prosecuted for homicide through reckless imprudence, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced. Plaintiffs, the widow and children of the deceased, sued defendant for damages. The trial court absolved defendant from liability. Plaintiffs appealed, contending defendant was negligent per se for allowing Romera, who lacked a driver’s license, to drive the truck in violation of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law.
ISSUE
Whether defendant Go Chong Bing is civilly liable for the death of Quirico Gregorio due to the alleged negligence of allowing his unlicensed helper to drive the truck.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment absolving defendant from liability. The Court found that the proximate, immediate, and direct cause of the accident was the negligence of policeman Venancio Orfanel, who took over driving the truck against the helper’s protest. While defendant may have been negligent in entrusting the truck to an unlicensed driver (Romera), such negligence was not the direct and proximate cause of the pedestrian’s death. For liability to attach, there must be a direct causal connection between the negligent act or omission and the damage incurred. Here, the intervening act of Orfanel—a person not related to the defendant—broke the chain of causation. Therefore, defendant’s alleged violation of the motor vehicle law did not create civil liability for the resulting accident.