Legal Opinion

10 July 2013 Mr. Juan Dela Cruz 123 Bayabas St. Singkamas, Makati City Dear Mr. Dela Cruz With reference to the requested legal opinion on the unfortunate mishap that was took place last week, 4 July 2013, below are the facts culled from your statement and submitted pertinent documents. On 4 July 2013, Mr. Dela Cruz was traversing the Harrison St. Pasay City on way to his house near from where he is working, at the Department of Foreign Affairs, main building. Mr. Dela Cruz came from the lotto outlet across the Harrison St., where he bet for a lotto ticket. Mr Dela Cruz house is on the other side of the Harrison St., and when he were about to cross, he saw from his left side a fast speeding motorcycle, overtaking a dump truck, coming towards him, and hit him in left part of his body. This speeding motorcycle overtook the “Men Working” or “Caution” sign. As a result, he suffered a fracture on his left ankle, his whole arm and leg became swollen and had a high blood pressure. Mr. Drew Barrymore, the rider of the motorcycle was slightly lost control and finally hit the concrete barrier. Mr. Drew suffered only a bruise on his knee. Mr. Drew after such incident alighted from his motorcycle and throw indecent words against Mr. Dela Cruz who on that moment suffering intense pain from the incident. Mr. Dela Cruz was brought to the hospital by a concern citizen and had a medical certificate while Mr. Drew leaves the scene. Mr. Dela Cruz contacted Mr. Drew to pay for damages but the latter refused to do so and just send a reply letter informing the former that he was not at fault. With reference to the above provided statement, the issue here is whether or not Mr. Drew is liable for damages. I believe that Mr. Drew is liable for damages. As defined by Article 2176 of the Civil Code: Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasidelict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. The nature of liability of Mr. Drew in this case can be specifically found in Article 2185 of the Civil Code which provides: 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 violating any traffic regulation.

The Supreme Court Explained in the case of Jonas Añonuevo vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Jerome Villagracia, (G.R. No. 130003, October 20, 2004) the reason behind the formulation of abovementioned Article, to wit: Article 2185 was not formulated to compel or ensure obeisance by all to traffic rules and regulations... The fact that there has long existed a higher degree of diligence and care imposed on motorized vehicles, arising from the special nature of motor vehicle, leads to the inescapable conclusion that the qualification under Article 2185 exists precisely to recognize such higher standard. Applying in the present case, Mr. Drew may not claim that he is not responsible for the damages caused by his negligent act. As what clearly defined by the Civil Code, particularly Article 2185, Mr. Drew is presumed to be negligent in the time of mishap when he is actually violated traffic rules, unless there is a proof to the contrary. However, the facts of this case delivering us to the conclusion that there is a clear traffic violation committed by Mr. Drew under Republic Act no. 4136 “An Act to Compile the Laws Relative to Land Transportation and Traffic Rules, to Create a Land Transportation Commission and for other Purposes” and pursuant to Section 41(d), Restriction on overtaking and passing: The driver of a vehicle shall not overtake or pass, or attempt to pass, any other vehicle, proceeding in the same direction, between any points indicated by the placing of official temporary warning or caution signs indicating that men are working on the highway. If Mr. Drew observes, for the protection of the interest of another person, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand and which an ordinary person would have used in the same situation, this unfortunate event would be prevented. Mr. Dela Cruz on his part was just clearly precautious in crossing the street until Mr. Drew, although without the intention to caused injury, but caused the same for lack of foresight and not taking vigilance on the degree of care imposed upon him as motorist. Beside, no person wants to be confined in a threatening situation that may cause lost in life and limb, as what occurred in this case, unless that person is suicidal which is not applicable in this case. Mr. Dela Cruz is entitled to moral damages pursuant Article 2219(2) of the Civil Code which states that “Moral Damages may be recovered in the following cases..... (2)Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries”. All of the above-stated opinions are based solely in the provisions of the law and jurisprudence. Should you extend this legal case to the court of law, I am positive that the latter will be in favor of your case. Very truly yours, Joel V. Ramirez