1/23/2015

G.R.No.34840

TodayisFriday,January23,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.34840September23,1931
NARCISOGUTIERREZ,plaintiffappellee,
vs.
BONIFACIOGUTIERREZ,MARIAV.DEGUTIERREZ,MANUELGUTIERREZ,ABELARDOVELASCO,and
SATURNINOCORTEZ,defendantsappellants.
L.D.LockwoodforappellantsVelascoandCortez.
SanAgustinandRoxasforotherappellants.
RamonDioknoforappellee.
MALCOLM,J.:
This is an action brought by the plaintiff in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the five defendants, to
recoverdamagesintheamountofP10,000,forphysicalinjuriessufferedasaresultofanautomobileaccident.
Onjudgmentbeingrenderedasprayedforbytheplaintiff,bothsetsofdefendantsappealed.
OnFebruary2,1930,apassengertruckandanautomobileofprivateownershipcollidedwhileattemptingtopass
eachotherontheTalonbridgeontheManilaSouthRoadinthemunicipalityofLasPias,ProvinceofRizal.The
truck was driven by the chauffeur Abelardo Velasco, and was owned by Saturnino Cortez. The automobile was
beingoperatedbyBonifacioGutierrez,alad18yearsofage,andwasownedbyBonifacio'sfatherandmother,
Mr.andMrs.ManuelGutierrez.Atthetimeofthecollision,thefatherwasnotinthecar,butthemother,together
willseveralothermembersoftheGutierrezfamily,seveninall,wereaccommodatedtherein.Apassengerinthe
autobus, by the name of Narciso Gutierrez, was en route from San Pablo, Laguna, to Manila. The collision
between the bus and the automobile resulted in Narciso Gutierrez suffering a fracture right leg which required
medicalattendanceforaconsiderableperiodoftime,andwhichevenatthedateofthetrialappearsnottohave
healedproperly.
Itisconcededthatthecollisionwascausedbynegligencepureandsimple.Thedifferencebetweenthepartiesis
that,whiletheplaintiffblamesbothsetsofdefendants,theownerofthepassengertruckblamestheautomobile,
and the owner of the automobile, in turn, blames the truck. We have given close attention to these highly
debatablepoints,andhavingdoneso,amajorityofthecourtareoftheopinionthatthefindingsofthetrialjudge
onallcontroversialquestionsoffactfindsufficientsupportintherecord,andsoshouldbemaintained.Withthis
generalstatementsetdown,weturntoconsidertherespectivelegalobligationsofthedefendants.
In amplification of so much of the above pronouncement as concerns the Gutierrez family, it may be explained
thattheyouthBonifaciowasinincompetentchauffeur,thathewasdrivingatanexcessiverateofspeed,andthat,
onapproachingthebridgeandthetruck,helosthisheadandsocontributedbyhisnegligencetotheaccident.
Theguarantygivenbythefatheratthetimethesonwasgrantedalicensetooperatemotorvehiclesmadethe
fatherresponsiblefortheactsofhisson.Basedonthesefacts,pursuanttotheprovisionsofarticle1903ofthe
Civil Code, the father alone and not the minor or the mother, would be liable for the damages caused by the
minor.
Wearedealingwiththecivillawliabilityofpartiesforobligationswhicharisefromfaultornegligence.Atthesame
time,webelievethat,ashasbeendoneinothercases,wecantakecognizanceofthecommonlawruleonthe
samesubject.IntheUnitedStates,itisuniformlyheldthattheheadofahouse,theownerofanautomobile,who
maintainsitforthegeneraluseofhisfamilyisliableforitsnegligentoperationbyoneofhischildren,whomhe
designatesorpermitstorunit,wherethecarisoccupiedandbeingusedatthetimeoftheinjuryforthepleasure
ofothermembersoftheowner'sfamilythanthechilddrivingit.Thetheoryofthelawisthattherunningofthe
machinebyachildtocarryothermembersofthefamilyiswithinthescopeoftheowner'sbusiness,sothatheis
liableforthenegligenceofthechildbecauseoftherelationshipofmasterandservant.(HuddyOnAutomobiles,
6thed.,sec.660Missellvs.Hayes[1914],91Atl.,322.)TheliabilityofSaturninoCortez,theownerofthetruck,
and of his chauffeur Abelardo Velasco rests on a different basis, namely, that of contract which, we think, has
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1931/sep1931/gr_34840_1931.html

1/2

1/23/2015

G.R.No.34840

been sufficiently demonstrated by the allegations of the complaint, not controverted, and the evidence. The
reason for this conclusion reaches to the findings of the trial court concerning the position of the truck on the
bridge,thespeedinoperatingthemachine,andthelackofcareemployedbythechauffeur.Whilethesefactsare
not as clearly evidenced as are those which convict the other defendant, we nevertheless hesitate to disregard
the points emphasized by the trial judge. In its broader aspects, the case is one of two drivers approaching a
narrowbridgefromoppositedirections,withneitherbeingwillingtoslowupandgivetherightofwaytotheother,
withtheinevitableresultofacollisionandanaccident.
ThedefendantsVelascoandCortezfurthercontendthatthereexistedcontributorynegligenceonthepartofthe
plaintiff, consisting principally of his keeping his foot outside the truck, which occasioned his injury. In this
connection, it is sufficient to state that, aside from the fact that the defense of contributory negligence was not
pleaded,theevidencebearingoutthistheoryofthecaseiscontradictoryintheextremeandleadsusfarafield
intospeculativematters.
The last subject for consideration relates to the amount of the award. The appellee suggests that the amount
couldjustlyberaisedtoP16,517,butnaturallyisnotseriousinaskingforthissum,sincenoappealwastakenby
him from the judgment. The other parties unite in challenging the award of P10,000, as excessive. All facts
considered,includingactualexpendituresanddamagesfortheinjurytothelegoftheplaintiff,whichmaycause
himpermanentlameness,inconnectionwithotheradjudicationsofthiscourt,leadustoconcludethatatotalsum
fortheplaintiffofP5,000wouldbefairandreasonable.Thedifficultyinapproximatingthedamagesbymonetary
compensation is well elucidated by the divergence of opinion among the members of the court, three of whom
haveinclinedtotheviewthatP3,000wouldbeamplysufficient,whileafourthmemberhasarguedthatP7,500
wouldbenonetoomuch.
Inconsonancewiththeforegoingrulings,thejudgmentappealedfromwillbemodified,andtheplaintiffwillhave
judgment in his favor against the defendants Manuel Gutierrez, Abelardo Velasco, and Saturnino Cortez, jointly
andseverally,forthesumofP5,000,andthecostsofbothinstances.
Avancea,C.J.,Johnson,Street,Villamor,Ostrand,Romualdez,andImperial,JJ.,concur.

VILLAREAL,J.:
IvoteforanindemnityofP7,500.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1931/sep1931/gr_34840_1931.html

2/2