BAYASEN vs.

CA
FACTS: Petitioner Saturnino Bayasen, the Rural Health Physician in Sagada, Mountain
Province, went to barrio Ambasing to visit apatient. Two nurses from the Saint Theodores
Hospital in Sagada, Elena Awichen and Dolores Balcita, rode with him in the jeepassigned
for the use of the Rural Health Unit. Later, at Ambasing, the girls, who wanted to gather
flowers, again asked if they could ride with him up to a certain place on the way to barrio
Suyo which he intended to visit anyway. Dr. Bayasen again allowed them to ride, Elena
sitting herself between him and Dolores.
On the way, the jeep went over a precipice. About 8 feet below the road, it was blocked by a
pine tree. The three, were thrown out ofthe jeep. Elena was found lying in a creek further
below. She suffered a skull fracture which caused her death. Saturnino Bayasen was
charged by with Homicide Thru Reckless Imprudence. Trial Court found Bayasen sentenced
him to an indeterminate penalty of 4 Months and 1 Day of arresto mayor as minimum, to 1
Year, 7 Months and 10 Days of prision correccional, as maximum, indemnify the heirs Elena
Awichen P3,000.00 as compensatory damages, P1,000.00 as attorneys fees and P1,886.00
for burial expenses of the deceased, and to pay the costs. On Appeal, CA affirmed the
decision of the trial court with the modifications that the indemnity was increased to
P6,000.00; the award of attorneys fees was set aside; and that the maximum of the prison
term was raised to 1 Year, 7 Months, and 17 Days of prision correccional. The motion for
reconsideration of Bayasen was denied. Hence, the petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether or not the reckless driving of accused-petitioner was the proximate cause
of the death of the victim.
HELD: The proximate cause of the tragedy was the skidding of the rear wheels of the
jeep and not the unreasonable speed of the petitioner because there was no evidence on
record to prove or support the finding that the petitioner was driving at an unreasonable
speed. The star witness of the prosecution, Dolores Balcita who was one of the
passengers in the jeep, testified that Saturnino Bayasen was driving his jeep moderately just
before the accident and categorically stated that she did not know what caused the jeep to
fall into the precipice. It is a well-known physical fact that cars may skid on greasy or
slippery roads, as in the instant case, without fault on account of the manner of handling the
car. Skidding means partial or complete loss of control of the car under circumstances not
necessarily implying negligence. It may occur without fault. Herein, under the particular
circumstances, Bayasen who skidded could not be regarded as negligent, the skidding
being an unforeseen event, so that Bayasen had a valid excuse for his departure from
his regular course.
The negligence of Bayasen has not having been sufficiently established, his guilt of the
crime charged has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. He is, therefore, entitled to
acquittal. The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals sought to be
reviewed, and acquitted Bayasen of the crime charged in the information in Criminal Case
1056 of the CFI of Mountain Province, with costs de oficio.
MALLARI vs. COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS: Mallari Jr. was the driving a passenger jeepney owned by his father, co-petitioner
herein. The jeep collided with the delivery van of Bulletin Publishing Corp. while travelling on
the National Highway in Bataan. Mallari Jr. proceeded to overtake a fiera which had stopped
in front of him. He negotiated the curve and moved in the opposite lane in order to overtake
the fiera. As he passed the vehicle he saw the delivery van of Bulletin and the vehicles
collided. The points of collision were the and the left rear portion of the passenger jeepney
and the left front side of the delivery van. The 2 right wheels of thedelivery van were on the
right shoulder of the road and pieces ofdebris from the accident were found scattered along
the shoulder of the road up to a certain portion of the lane travelled by the passenger
jeepney. The impact caused the jeepney to turn around and fall on its left side resulting in
injuries to its passengers one of whom was Israel Reyes who eventually died due to the
gravity of his injuries.

The widow of Reyes filed a complaint to recover damages from Mallari, Jr. and Sr. and
Bulletin as well. The trial court found that the proximate cause of the collision was the
negligence of the driver of the Bulletin delivery van, considering the fact that the left front
portion of the delivery truck hit and bumped the left rear portion of the passenger jeepney.
On appeal, the court reversed the decision of the lower court and held that it was Mallari Jr.
who was negligent. Hence this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners herein should be held liable for the death of Reyes.
HELD: The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and held that Mallari Jr. and
Sr. who are responsible for the death of Reyes. The collision was caused by the sole
negligence of petitioner Alfredo Mallari Jr. who admitted that immediately before the collision
and after he rounded a curve on the highway, he overtook a Fiera which had stopped on his
lane and that he had seen the van driven by Angeles before overtaking the Fiera. This act of
overtaking was in clear violation of Sec. 41, pars. (a) and (b), of RA 4136 as amended,
otherwise known as The Land Transportation and Traffic Code. The rule is settled that a
driver abandoning his proper lane for the purpose of overtaking another vehicle in an
ordinary situation has the duty to see to it that the road is clear and not to proceed if he
cannot do so in safety. Article 2185 of the NCC, there is a presumption of negligence on the
part of a person driving a motor vehicle if at the time of the mishap he was violating a traffic
regulation. Petitioners herein failed to present satisfactory evidence to overcome this legal
presumption. Therefore they shall be liable for the loss of Reyes life.
PESTANO vs. SUMAYANG
FACTS: Ananias Sumayang was riding a motorcycle along the national highway inIlihan,
Tabagon, Cebu. Riding with him was his friend Manuel Romagos. As they cameupon a
junction where the highway connected with the road leading to Tabagon, theywere hit by a
passenger bus driven by Pestao and owned by Metro Cebu which hadtried to overtake
them, sending the motorcycle and its passengers hurtling upon thepavement. Apart from the
institution of criminal charges against Pestao,Respondent-heirs, filed this civil action for
damages against petitioners. The caseswere consolidated. The lower court found petitioners
liable. Said decision was affirmed by CA, hence this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not Pestano was negligent
HELD: Yes. A professional driver operating a public transport bus should anticipate that
overtaking at a junction is a perilous maneuver and should thus exercise extreme
caution. Petitioners are raising a question of fact based on Pestaos testimony
contradicting that of Eyewitness Ignacio Neis and on the location of the dents on the bumper
and the grill. Neis testified that as the two vehicles approached the junction, the victim raised
his left arm to signal that he was turning left to Tabagon, but that the latter and his
companion were thrown off the motorcycle after it was bumped by the overspeeding bus.
These contentions have already been passed upon by the trial and the appellate courts.
We find no cogent reason to reverse or modify their factual findings. The CA agreed with the
trial court that the vehicular collision was caused by Pestaos negligence when he
attempted to overtake the motorcycle. As a professional driver operating a public transport
bus, he should have anticipated that overtaking at a junction was a perilous maneuver and
should thus have exercised extreme caution.
The fact that the driver was able to use a bus with a faulty speedometer shows that the
employer was remiss in the supervision of its employees and in the proper care of its
vehicles.The CA said that allowing Pestao to ply his route with a defective speedometer
showed laxity on the part of Metro Cebu in the operation of its business and in the
supervision of its employees. The negligence alluded to here is in its supervision over its
driver, not in that which directly caused the accident. The fact that Pestao was able to use
a bus with a faulty speedometer shows that Metro Cebu was remiss in the supervision of its
employees and in the proper care of its vehicles. It had thus failed to conduct its business
with the diligence required by law.