PLDT v.

CA
PLDT v. CA and Sps. Antonio and Gloria Esteban
1989 / Regalado / Petition for review on certiorari of CA resolution
Defenses against charge of negligence > Plaintiff’s negligence is proximate cause

FACTS
Sps. Esteban were riding their jeep along the inside lane of Lacson Street where they resided [at 25km/hr as Antonio Esteban
claimed; CA said jeep ran fast; if the jeep braked at that speed, the spouses would not have been thrown against the windshield ].
The jeep abruptly swerved from the inside lane, then it ran over a mound of earth and fell into an open trench, an excavation
allegedly undertaken by PLDT for the installation of its underground conduit system. Antonio failed to notice the open trench
which was left uncovered because of the darkness and the lack of any warning light or signs. The spouses were thrown against
the windshield. Gloria Esteban allegedly sustained injuries on her arms, legs and face, leaving a permanent scar on her cheek,
while Antonio suffered cut lips. The jeep’s windshield was also shattered.
          PLDT denies liability, contending that the injuries sustained by the spouses were due to their own negligence, and that it
should be the independent contractor L.R. Barte and Co. [Barte] who should be held liable.  PLDT filed a third-party complaint
against Barte, alleging that under the terms of their agreement, PLDT should not be answerable for any accident or injuries
arising from the negligence of Barte or its employees. Barte claimed that it was not aware, nor was it notified of the accident, and
that it complied with its contract with PLDT by installing the necessary and appropriate signs.
          RTC ruled in favor of the spouses. CA reversed RTC and dismissed the spouses’ complaint, saying that the spouses were
negligent. Later, it set aside its earlier decision and affirmed in totoRTC’s decision. (SC declared this later decision null and
void. The first decision already became final and executory because no appeal was taken seasonably.)

ISSUE AND HOLDING

WON PLDT is liable for the injuries sustained by Sps. Esteban. NO

RATIO
The accident which befell the spouses was due to the lack of diligence of Antonio, and was not imputable to the negligent
omission on the part of PLDT. If the accident did not happen because the jeep was running quite fast on the inside lane and for
some reason or other it had to swerve suddenly to the right and had to climb over the accident mound, then Antonio had not
exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the accident. With the drizzle, he should not have run on dim lights,
but should have put on his regular lights which should have made him see the accident mound in time. The mound was relatively
big and visible, being 2-3 ft high and 1-1/2 ft wide. Also, he knew of the existence and location of the mound, having seen it
many previous times. 
          The negligence of Antonio was not only contributory to his and his wife’s injuries but goes to the very cause of the
occurrence of the accident, as one of its determining factors, and there by precludes their right to recover damages. The
perils of the road were known to the spouses as they have seen it many previous times. With the drizzle, he should not have run
on dim lights, but should have put on his regular lights which should have made him see the accident mound in time. The mound
was relatively big and visible, being 2-3 ft high and 1-1/2 ft wide. By exercising reasonable care and prudence, Antonio could
have avoided the injurious consequences of his act, even assuming arguendo that there was some alleged negligence on the part
of PLDT.
          The omission to perform a duty, such as the placing of warning signs on the site of the excavation, constitutes the
proximate cause only when the doing of the said omitted act would have prevented the injury. As a resident of Lacson
Street, he passed on that street almost everyday and had knowledge of the presence and location of the excavations there; hence,
the presence of warning signs could not have completely prevented the accident. Furthermore, Antonio had the last clear chance
to avoid the accident, notwithstanding the negligence he imputes to PLDT. 
          A person claiming damages for the negligence of another has the burden of proving the existence of such fault or
negligence causative thereof, otherwise, his action must fail. The facts constitutive of negligence must be affirmatively
established by competent evidence. In this case, there was insufficient evidence to prove any negligence on the part of PLDT.
What was presented was just the self-serving testimony of Antonio and the unverified photograph of a portion of the scene of the
accident. The absence of a police report and the non-submission of a medical report from the hospital where the spouses were
allegedly treated have not even been explained.