Heirs of Redentor Completo v Albayda

Heirs of Redentor Completo v Albayda, Jr. | 2010 | Nachura Facts:

1. Albayda, a master sergeant of Philippine Air Force, and Completo, a taxi driver, had a collision collision at th

th

the corner of 8 and 11 streets, Villamor Air Base; Former was riding a bicycle while latter was driving a taxi; 

Albayda suffered serious physical injuries, including a fracture on his left knee, necessating surgical operations;

2. Conciliation in the barangay failed so Albayda filed a complaint for physical injuries thru reckless imprudence; Completo, on the other hand, filed a counter-charge of damage to property thru reckless imprudence against Albayda; The City Prosecutor recommended, however, the filing of  an info for reckless imprudence against Completo and the counter-charge be dismissed; 3. Case raffled to MTC Pasay where Albayda manifested his reservation to file a separate civil action for damages against Completo and Abiad (former’s employer);

4. Parties’ claims: 

Albayda – proximate cause of accident which caused his 7 month hospital stay was the negligence of Completo, who at that time of accident, was employed by Abiad; -

Asked for moral, exemplary and attorney’s fees;

-

Presented one Navarro who said Complete was driving at an unusually fast speed – the normal speed was 25km per hour; the side of the bike was hit by the taxicab at th

th

intersection of 11 and 8 streets; Albayda fell grimacing in pain; -

At that moment, the taxi was 10 meters away from and backed up only some 15 seconds later when a do ctor brought Albayda inside Completo’s taxi to be taken to the hospital;



Completo – said he was an experienced driver who, in accordance with traffic rules and common courtesy to his fellow motorists, had already reduced his speed to 2 0km per hour th

th

even before reaching the 8 and 11 streets; Albayda had no cause of action, his negligence cause his injuries and the complaint was filed for harassment purposes and unjust enrichment; -

Albayda rode his bike at very high speed causing him to lose control; the deep indentation at the rear right door was caused by Albayda’s body while the slight

indentation at the front right door was cause by the bike after Albayda let go of his handles when he had lost control of it; 

Abiad, the employer, said Completo was a good driver and a good man; he te stified that the required him to show his bio- data, NBI clearance, and driver’s license since his employ in 1997; being an operator of tax icabs, Abiad would wake up early and personally check all taxicabs

5. RTC favoured Albayda and award actual, moral damages and attorney’s fees; CA delete d actual damages, reduced moral damages, awarded attorney’s fees and t emperate damages;

Issues:

1. Did CA err in finding that Completo w as the one who cause the collision? NO 2. W/N Abiad failed to prove he observed the diligence of a good father of the family; YES, he failed 3. W/N the damages awarded was proper. Modified Held and Ratio: 1. On negligence: a. Court says facts passed upon by RTC and affirmed by CA are entitled to great weight so they accepted it; b. RULE in negligence suits: the plaintiff has the burden of proving by pre ponderance of  evidence: 

the motorist’s breach in his duty of cared owed to the plaintiff,



that the motorist was negligent in failing to exercise the diligence required to avoid injury to the plaintiff, and



c.

that such negligence was the proximate cause of t he injury suffered;

It was proven that Completo failed to e xercise reasonable negligence because he was overspeeding at the time he hit the bicycle at the time he hit the bicycle ridden by Albaydal; 

Such negligence was the proximate cause of the ser ious physical injuries;



Completo did not slow down even when he approached the intersection;



It was proven that Albayda had the r ight of way, considering that he reached the intersection ahead of Completo;

d. BICYCLE: occupies a legal position that is at least equal to t hat of other vehicles lawfully on the highway; and fortified by the fact that usually more w ill be required of a MOTORIST than a BICYCLIST in discharging his duty of care to the other because of the physical advantages of the automobile has over the bicycle; 

It is more obvious that a motor vehicle poses a greater danger of harm to a bicyclist;



While the duty of using reasonable care falls alike on a motorist and a bicyclist, due to the inherent differences in the two vehicles, more care is required from the motorist t o fully discharge the duty from the bicyclist;

2. For the employer: 

Legal presumption of fault lies with him so Burden of proo f is on him to prove he exe rcised the diligence of a good father in the selection and supervision of his employees; 1. Selection: employers are required to examine them as to their qualifications, experience and service records; 2. Supervision: employers should formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation and impose disciplinary measures for breaches;



There must be concrete proof, including documentary evidence; Abiad’s sole testimony (read above) is short of diligence required by law; it’s merely testimonial and the

unsubstantiated and self-serving testimony was insufficient to overcome the legal presumption of negligence;



The responsibility of two or more persons liable for quasi-delict quasi-delict are solidary; liability of  employers is also primary and direct;

3. Damages: 

Moral damages are proper since they may be awarded when quasi-delicts cause physical injuries; Court granted since pain was written on Albayda’s face when he took the witness

stand; 

Temperate damages, more than nominal but less than compensatory, were awarded because the amount of pecuniary loss cannot be, from nature of the case, cannot be proved with certainty;

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED, damages modified. Moral 500k; temperate 100k. Petitioners solidarily liable.