Tiu vs Arriesgado

Tiu vs Arriesgado September 1, 2004 Facts: On March 15, 1987, a Truck marked “Condor Hollow Blocks and General Merchandise” was on its way to Cebu when it’s rear tire exploded. The driver Sergio Pedrano then parked the truck on the side of the National Highway, left the rear lights on, and instructed his helper, Jose Mitante, to watch over the truck and place a spare tire on the road a few meters away from the tire to serve as a warning device as he went and had the faulty tire vulcanized. After Pedrano left, D’ Rough Riders passenger bus carrying the respondent, passed by the same route and hit the truck. The petitioner was injured in the collision and his wife, Felissa Arriesgado eventually died after sustaining injuries from the same. Hence, he filed a complaint against the petitioner for breach of contract of carriage, damages and for attorneys fees against the petitioner, the owner of the bus, William Tiu and his driver, Laspinas. However, the petitioner filed a third-party complaint alleging that the said truck was parked in a slanted manner and did not have any early warning devices displayed while it was left by the driver which resulted to the collision and would therefore make, Benjamin Condor, the owner of the truck liable as well. Also, the petitioner included that he was covered by Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance (PPSI) at the time of the incident which would therefore make the same liable for part of the damages that may arise as well. PPSI, however argued that it already attended to and settled claims of those who were injured in the collision and that it could not accede to the claim of Arriesgado because it was beyond that of the terms of the insurance. The trial court found that the contention of the petitioner was invalid because the said truck had left it’s tail lights open and that the said road was well lit at the time of the accident. Hence, it was the fault of the bus, for traveling at a fast pace, that the collision happened. The Petitioner, Tiu, appealed to the CA but was denied which prompted him to seek another reconsideration. Issue: W/N The owner and driver of the Truck, Benjamin Condor and Sergio Pedrano, was liable due to their negligence in the lack of an early warning device and hence liable to the respondent as well. (Violation of Sec 34 of LTO Land traffic code.) W/N Petitioner was negligent W/N Petitioner was also liable for exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.

W/N PPSI is also liable. Held: The court found that indeed, the petitioner, was liable for being negligent while being engaged in the business of common carriage. The SC could no longer change the facts that were sustained in the trial court and court of appeals hence, since it was deemed that the bus was moving in a very fast speed which was the cause of the accident, the SC will have to sustain that ruling and hold that indeed, there was negligence on the part of the petitioner. Also, the doctrine of “Last Clear Chance” is inapplicable to the case because it could only apply to a controversy between two colliding vehicles. In this case, it was the passenger and not another driver who was injured and thus, the said doctrine could not be applied. However, the respondents Pedrano and Condor was found by the court to be negligent as well. The court found that there was merit in the contention of the petitioner that the said truck violated Section 34 or RA 4136, wherein they did not have proper warning devices in accordance with the said law. Lastly, with regard to PPSI, the court held that since it admitted to being bound by a contract with the petitioner, it would be liable as well. However, the said liability would only fall within the amount settled in the said contract. Hence, the petition was partially granted.