BJDC CONSTRUCTION vs LANUZO

FACTS:
Nena Lanuzo filed a complaint for damages against BJDC Construction. BJDC is engaged in
construction business, serving as the contractor of the project to repair the damaged portion
of a national highway in Camarines Sur. She alleged that she was the surviving spouse of the
late Balbino who died in an accident that transpired at the construction site; that Balbinos
motorcycle sideswiped the road barricade placed by BJDC, causing him to lose control of his
motorcycle and to crash on the newly cemented road; and that BJDCs failure to place
illuminated warning signs on the site, especially during night time, was the proximate cause
of the death of Balbino.
In its answer, BJDC denied the allegations, insisting that it had installed warning signs and
lights along the highway and on the barricades of the project; that at the time of the
incident, the lights were working and switched on; that its project was duly inspected by the
DPWH, the Office of the Mayor, and the Municipal Police Station; and that it was found to
have satisfactorily taken measures to ensure the safety of motorists. BJDC further alleged
that since the start of the project, it installed several warning signs, such as big overhead
streamers, road signs, and barricades, and that the unaffected portion of the highway was
temporarily widened in the adjacent road shoulder to allow twoway vehicular traffic.
BJDC insisted that Balbinos death was an accident brought about by his own negligence, as
confirmed by the police investigation report that stated, among others, that Balbino was not
wearing any helmet at that time, and the accident occurred while Balbino was overtaking
another motorcycle; and that the police report also stated that the road sign/barricade
installed on the road had a light. Thus, it sought the dismissal of the complaint and prayed,
by way of counterclaim, that the Nena be ordered to pay attorneys fees and moral
damages.
The RTC ruled in favor of BJDC on the ground that the plaintiff did not present an eyewitness
account of the death of their decedent. On the contrary, the flagman of defendant was
present when the accident occurred. However, the RTC ruling was reversed was CA upon
appeal. The appellate court regarded as selfserving the testimony of Eduardo Zamora, an
employee of the company who testified that there was an electric bulb placed on top of the
barricade on the area of the accident. It held that Zamoras statement was negated by the
statements of Ernesto Alto and Asuncion Sandia to the effect that they had passed by the
area immediately before the accident and had seen the road to be dark and lit only by a gas
lamp. It noted that SPO1 Corporal, the police investigator, had noticed the presence of
lighted electric bulbs in the area, but the same had been installed on the other side of the
street opposite the barricade. Thus, the placing of road signs and streamers alone did not
prove that the electric bulbs were in fact switched on at the time of the accident as to
sufficiently light up the newly reblocked portion of the highway. BJDC filed a motion for
reconsideration, but the CA denied such motion.
ISSUE:
Whose evidence was preponderant in establishing the negligence which proximately caused
the death of Balbino?
[BJDC Construction]
HELD & RATIO:
Section 1, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court mandates that in civil cases, the party having the
burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. Burden of proof
is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to
establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.
Generally, the party who denies has no burden to prove. The burden of proof is on the

plaintiff if the defendant denies the factual allegations of the complaint in the manner
required by the Rules of Court, but it may rest on the defendant if he admits expressly or
impliedly the essential allegations but raises affirmative defense or defenses, which if
proved, will exculpate him from liability.
Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence as a whole adduced by one
side is superior to that of the other. It refers to the weight, credit and value of the
aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term
greater weight of evidence or greater weight of the credible evidence. However, the
plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the
defendants.
The Lanuzo heirs, the parties carrying the burden of proof, did not establish by
preponderance of evidence that the negligence on the part of the company was
the proximate cause of the fatal accident of Balbino.
The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be
stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable
care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation?
If not, then he is guilty of negligence.
(1) The Lanuzo heirs argued that there was a total omission on the part of the company to
place illuminated warning signs on the site of the project, especially during night time, to
warn motorists. They claim that the omission was the proximate cause of the death of
Balbino. In this appeal, however, they contend that the negligence of the company
consisted in its omission to put up adequate lighting and the required signs to warn
motorists of the project, abandoning their previous argument of a total omission to
illuminate the project site.
During the trial, the Lanuzo heirs attempted to prove inadequacy of illumination instead
of the total omission of illumination. They presented witnesses who were not consistent
on their recollections of the significant detail of the illumination of the site. In contrast,
BJDC credibly refuted the allegation of inadequate illumination. Zamora, its flagman in the
project, rendered an eyewitness account of the accident by stating that the site had been
illuminated by light bulbs and gas lamps, and that Balbino had been in the process of
overtaking another motorcycle rider at a fast speed when he hit the barricade. On his
part, SPO1 Corporal recalled that there were light bulbs on the other side of the barricade;
and that the light bulb on the lane where the accident had occurred was broken because
it had been hit by the victims motorcycle. Witnesses Gerry Alejo and Engr. Victorino del
Socorro remembered that light bulbs and gas lamps had been installed in the area of the
project.
(2) BJDC presented as its documentary evidence the investigation of SPO1 Corporal, the
relevant portions of which indicated the finding of the police investigator on the presence
of illumination at the project site. Additionally, BJDC submitted the application for lighting
permit covering the project site to prove the fact of installation of the electric light bulbs
in the project site.
Thus, the RTC properly gave more weight to the testimonies of Zamora and SPO1 Corporal
than to those of the witnesses for the Lanuzo heirs. There was justification for doing so,
because the greater probability pertained to the former. Moreover, the trial courts
assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of their testimonies is preferred to that
of the appellate courts because of the formers unique firsthand opportunity to observe
the witnesses and their demeanor as such. The Court observes, too, that SPO1 Corporal, a

veteran police officer detailed for more than 17 years at the Pili Police Station, enjoyed
the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duties
(3) The CA unreasonably branded the testimonies of Zamora and SPO1 Corporal as self
serving. But court declarations are not selfserving considering that the adverse party is
accorded the opportunity to test the veracity of the declarations by crossexamination
and other methods. There is no question that Zamora and SPO1 Corporal were thoroughly
crossexamined by the counsel for the Lanuzo heirs. Their recollections remained
unchallenged by superior contrary evidence from the Lanuzo heirs.
(4) The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur had no application. Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase
that literally means the thing or the transaction speaks for itself. It is a maxim for the
rule that the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding
circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make
out a plaintiffs prima facie case, and present a question of fact for defendant to meet
with an explanation. For the doctrine to apply, the following requirements must be shown
to exist, namely: (a) the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence
of someones negligence; (b) it is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive
control of the defendant or defendants; and (c) the possibility of contributing conduct that
would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated.
Based on the evidence adduced by the Lanuzo heirs, negligence cannot be fairly ascribed
to the company considering that it has shown its installation of the necessary warning
signs and lights in the project site. In that context, the fatal accident was not caused by
any instrumentality within the exclusive control of the company. In contrast, Balbino had
the exclusive control of how he operated and managed his motorcycle. The records
disclose that he overtook another motorcycle rider at a fast speed. Moreover, by the time
of the accident, the project had been going on for more than a month. Balbino, who had
passed there on a daily basis in going to and from his residence and the school where he
then worked as the principal, was thus very familiar with the risks at the project site. Nor
could the Lanuzo heirs justly posit that the illumination was not adequate, for it cannot be
denied that Balbinos motorcycle was equipped with headlights. Balbino was also not
wearing a helmet during such time.