In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that common carriers must exercise extraordinary diligence for the safety of passengers and the public. The Court emphasized that failing to meet this high standard results in a presumption of negligence. This decision underscores the responsibility of common carriers to ensure road safety and protect individuals from harm caused by their operations. The ruling clarifies the extent of diligence required and the consequences of failing to adhere to it, providing a clear legal framework for similar cases.

Tragedy on Embarcadero Bridge: Who Bears the Blame for Bismark Cacho’s Untimely Demise?

The case revolves around a vehicular accident that occurred on June 30, 1999, near the Embarcadero Bridge in Alaminos, Pangasinan. Bismark Cacho, driving a Nissan Sentra, collided with a Dagupan Bus. Cacho died, and his wife, Linda Cacho, along with their children, filed a complaint for damages against Gerardo Manahan, the bus driver; Dagupan Bus Co., Inc., the bus owner; and Renato de Vera, owner of R.M. De Vera Construction. The plaintiffs argued that the bus swerved into Cacho’s lane to avoid negligently placed boulders, causing the fatal collision.

The trial court initially found Manahan, Dagupan Bus, and De Vera jointly and severally liable, emphasizing Manahan’s excessive speed and De Vera’s negligent placement of boulders. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, attributing the accident to Cacho’s reckless driving. The Supreme Court, however, sided with the trial court, emphasizing the high standard of care required of common carriers. The central legal question was determining who was negligent and whose negligence was the proximate cause of the accident.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, emphasized the importance of witness credibility and the trial court’s unique position to assess it. The Court noted that the trial court gave significant weight to the testimony of Alvin Camba, a bus passenger, who testified that the bus was traveling at a high speed before the collision. The Court reiterated that it would only overturn a trial court’s findings if there was a clear showing that it overlooked or misapplied substantial facts. “The assessment of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses is accorded great weight and respect and even considered as conclusive and binding,” the Court stated.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court examined the physical evidence, particularly photographs of the accident scene, and determined that the position of Cacho’s car after the collision was inconsistent with the CA’s conclusion that the bus was at a full stop. The Court explained that Cacho’s car would not have been thrown off and turned counter-clockwise to the opposite direction of its motion if there was no heavier and greater force that collided with it. Furthermore, photographs indicated that the bus occupied a portion of Cacho’s lane, further supporting Manahan’s negligence. Therefore, based on the evidence, Manahan was clearly negligent because the bus he was driving already occupied a portion of the opposite lane, and he was driving at a high speed while approaching the bridge.

The Supreme Court also invoked the test for negligence as laid down in Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil. 809 (1918), asking whether Manahan used reasonable care and caution that an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation. Considering Manahan was driving a large vehicle on a narrow road, approaching a narrow bridge, and visibility was compromised, the Court found that he failed to exercise the necessary caution. As the Court held in Picart v. Smith:

The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.

Moreover, the Court noted that Manahan was legally presumed negligent under Article 2185 of the Civil Code, which states that “unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was [in violation of] any traffic regulation.” Given the conditions, Manahan violated traffic rules regarding speed and prudence, further solidifying the finding of negligence. R.A. No. 4136, also known as the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, outlines those traffic rules:

Section 35. Restriction as to speed. –
(a) Any person driving a motor vehicle on a highway shall drive the same at a careful and prudent speed, not greater or less than is reasonable and proper, having due regard for the traffic, the width of the highway, and of any other condition then and there existing; and no person shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway at such speed as to endanger the life, limb and property of any person, nor at a speed greater than will permit him to bring the vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.

The Supreme Court then addressed the liability of Dagupan Bus as Manahan’s employer under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. This article states that employers are liable for damages caused by their negligent employees unless they can prove they exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees. The Court found that Dagupan Bus failed to demonstrate such diligence, particularly noting Manahan’s limited experience driving buses. The Court emphasized that Dagupan Bus allowed Manahan to drive its buses despite his limited experience and indications of slow reaction times. “When an employee causes damage due to his own negligence while performing his own duties, the juris tantum presumption arises that his employer is negligent, rebuttable only by proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a family,” the Court explained.

Finally, the Court highlighted the importance of extraordinary diligence required of common carriers, as mandated by Article 1733 of the Civil Code. The Court stressed that although this standard primarily benefits passengers, it also extends to pedestrians and other vehicle owners, ensuring safer roads for everyone. In conclusion, the Supreme Court reinstated the trial court’s decision with a modification regarding interest, ordering Manahan, Dagupan Bus, and De Vera solidarily liable for damages. The Court provided additional clarity regarding the imposition of interest on the awards, specifying that the interest must be computed from the date when the RTC rendered its decision.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was determining who was negligent and therefore liable for the vehicular accident that resulted in Bismark Cacho’s death, focusing on the standard of diligence required of common carriers.
Who were the parties involved in the lawsuit?	The parties involved were Linda Cacho and her children (petitioners), and Gerardo Manahan (bus driver), Dagupan Bus Co., Inc. (bus owner), and Renato de Vera (owner of R.M. De Vera Construction) as respondents.
What did the trial court initially decide?	The trial court initially held Manahan, Dagupan Bus, and De Vera jointly and severally liable for damages to the petitioners, citing negligence on the part of Manahan and De Vera.
How did the Court of Appeals rule?	The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, finding that the accident was due to the negligence of Bismark Cacho, the deceased driver.
What was the Supreme Court’s decision?	The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the trial court’s ruling with a modification regarding the interest on the monetary awards.
What standard of care is expected of common carriers?	Common carriers are required to exercise extraordinary diligence for the safety of passengers and the public, a higher standard than ordinary diligence.
What is the legal significance of Article 2185 of the Civil Code in this case?	Article 2185 states that a person driving a motor vehicle is presumed negligent if they violate any traffic regulation at the time of the mishap.
What is the employer’s liability for the negligence of an employee?	Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, an employer is liable for damages caused by the negligence of an employee unless the employer can prove due diligence in their selection and supervision.

This case serves as a reminder of the stringent requirements placed on common carriers to ensure public safety. By upholding the principle of extraordinary diligence and carefully scrutinizing the evidence, the Supreme Court reinforced the accountability of those entrusted with transporting people and goods on public roads.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Linda Cacho, et al. vs. Gerardo Manahan, et al., G.R. No. 203081, January 17, 2018