PHILIPPINE HAWK CORP. vs. VIVIAN TAN LEE FIDEL CABARDO vs.

CA and JUANITO RODIL

Facts Facts

Vivian and her husband Silvino Tan was on board a motorcycle at a stop Jose Peralta was a driver of Consolidated Industrial Gases Incorporated.
position on the side of the highway. When they were about to make a Along with him was Fidel Cabardo who was his helper and pump
turn, Vivian saw a bus running at a fast speed coming toward them and operator. While Peralta was driving the company’s truck-tanker on the
then the bus hit a jeep parked on the roadside and their motorcycle as southbound lane of SLEX, a Volkswagen car suddenly took the inner
well. Vivian was confined for a week and her husband died as a result of lane occupied by his truck so he was forced to swerve to the left. The
the accident. truck-tanker, as a result, veered and rolled over the center island of the
expressway.
The bus was driven by Margarito Avila and owned by Philippine Hawk
Corp. Avila, in his defense, testified that a motorcycle ran from his left Later, Juanito Rodil driving a Toyota Corolla car, came along the inner
side of the highway, and as the bus came near, the motorcycle crossed lane. It was raining then affecting the visibility. Rodil upon seeing the
the path of the bus, and so he turned the bus to the right. He saw the truck-tanker on the center island, immediate stepped on the brakes
motorcycle turned turtle but he did not stop to help because of fear. He causing his car to swerve leftward, slide towards the truck and eventually
instead drove on and surrendered to the police. crashed to the underside of the truck.

Vivian filed before RTC of QC a Complaint against Petitioner and Avila Rodil and his wife were injured. Peralta was unhurt but Cabardo suffered
for damages based on quasi delict. a fractured left leg.

The trial court found Avila guilty of simple negligence. The fact that the Binan INP police filed a case for Reckless Imprudence resulting in
bus also hit the passenger jeepney showed that the bus must have been serious Physical Injuries against Rodil.
running from the right lane to the left lane of the highway, which caused
the collision with the motorcycle and the jeep parked on the left side of Rodil filed a complaint for damages against CIGI and Peralta before the
the road. Since Avila saw the motorcycle before the collision, he should RTC of Sta. Cruz Laguna.
have stopped or slowed down, but he just maintained his speed and
veered to the left. Philippine Hawk Corp. and Avila was made to pay Cabardo filed a complaint of damages against Rodil in RTC Malolos
damages to defendant jointly and solidarilly. Bulacan.

CA affirmed the decision of the lower court. In his complaint, petitioner claimed that he and Peralta were able to get
out of the vehicle unhurt when it fell on the center island. He was about
Petitioner elevates the case to the SC by way of Petition for Review. to put up an early warning device when respondent recklessly and
negligently bumped the truck and hit his left leg.
Issues
Respondent denied such alleging that the injury was the result of the
1. Whether or not the negligence could be attributed to accident when the truck fell on its side.
petitioner’s driver?
2. Whether or not petitioner is liable for damages? RTC Sta. Cruz rendered judgment finding CIGI and Peralta guilty of
negligence and Rodil guilty of contributory negligence.
Held
RTC Malolos rendered judgment against Rodil finding him guilty of
I. recklessness in driving which was the proximate cause of the injuries
suffered by Cabardo.
Foreseeability is the fundamental test of negligence. To be negligent, a
defendant must have acted or failed to act in such a way than an ordinary Respondent appealed to the CA. CA reversed the decision of RTC.
reasonable man would have realized that certain interests of certain
persons were unreasonably subjected to a general but definite class of Petitioner now comes before the SC in a petition for review on certiorari.
risks.
Issues
The bus driver, who was driving on the right side of the road already saw
the motorcycle on the left side of the road before the collision but he did 1. W/N Rodil was negligently driving his car when the accident
not take the necessary precaution to slow down. The bus was negligent happened
in veering to the left lane causing it to hit the motorcycle and jeep. 2. W/N petitioner’s injury was caused by respondent

II. Held

If an employee’s negligence causes damage or injury to another, there I
arises a presumption that the employer failed to exercise the due
Yes, he was driving unreasonably fast even if he could hardly see an
diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision
object at a distance of 10 meters.
of its employees. The employer must present convincing proof that he
exercised the care and required diligence in the S&S of its employees to II
overcome such presumption.
The Court finds that the injuries sustained by petitioner is indeed the
The SC upholds the finding that petitioner is liable for having failed to result of the accident caused by respondent.
sufficiently inculcate in him discipline and correct behaviour on the
road. Petitioner was taken to the hospital in Binan together with the Rodils.
Had he been injured earlier, he would have been taken for treatment
much earlier.

If the plaintiff sustained injuries when the truck turned turtle, the injury
would not have been on his left knee more especially on the right side
that must have come in contact to the door since the truck fell on the
right side.