G.R. No.

130003 October 20, 2004

Jonas Añonuevo, petitioner,

vs.
Hon. Court of Appeals an Jero!e "#lla$rac#a,
"#lla$rac#a, respondents.
 respondents.

%&NGA, J .'
.'

(acts'
Villagracia was traveling along Boni Ave. on his bicycle, while Añonuevo,traversing the opposite
lane was driving a Lancer car owned by Procter and Gamble Inc., the employer o Añonuevo!s
brother. Añonuevo was in the course o ma"ing a letturn towards Libertad #treet when the collision
occurred.

Villagracia sustained serious in$uries and had to undergo our operations. Villagracia instituted an
action or damages against P%G Phils., Inc. and Añonuevo beore the &'(. )e had also iled a
criminal complaint against Añonuevobeore the *etropolitan 'rial (ourt o *andaluyong, but the
latter was subse+uentlyac+uitted o the criminal charge.

 Añ on u ev o cl ai ms th a t Vi ll a gr a ci a vi o la t ed tr a i c re g u la ti o ns w he n he a i l ed to re gi s te r hi s bi c yc le o r
install saety gadgets. )e posits that Article -/ o the (ivil (ode applies by analogy. Article -/.
0nless there is proo to the contrary, it is presumed that a persondriving a motor vehicle has been
negligent i at the time o the mishap he was violating any traic regulation.

&ssues'
 A. 1 he th e r or no t Ar t. -  / o th e 2e w (i v i l ( od e sh ou l d ap p ly to no n3 mo to r i4 ed v eh ic l es , ma "i ng
Villagracia presumptively negligent.
B. 1hether or not not Villagracia
Villagracia was negligent
negligent or ailure to comply with traic traic regulations.
regulations.
(. 1hether or or not Villagracia
Villagracia is guilty o contributory
contributory negligence

Hel' 2o
Hel'  2o to all.

 A. A pp l i ca ti o n o Ar ti cl e - /

 Aonuevo claims that Villagracia violated traic regulations when he ailed to register his bicycle or install saety
gadgets thereon. )e posits that Article -/ o the 2ew (ivil (ode applies by analogy. 'he provision reads5

 Article 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor
motor vehicle has been
negligent if at the time of the mishap he was violating any traffic regulation.

 Aonuevo hypothesi4es that Article -/ should apply by analogy to all types o vehicles 678.  )e points out that
modern3day travel is more comple9 now than when the (ode was enacted, the number and types o vehicles now in
use ar more numerous than as o then. )e even suggests that at the time o the enactment o the (ode, the
legislators must have seen that only motor vehicles were o such public concern that they had to be speciically
mentioned,
menti oned, yet today
today,, the inter
interactio
action
n o vehicles o all types and nature has inesc
inescapably
apably become matter o public
concern so as to e9pand the application o the law to be more responsive to the times. 6:8

 At the time Article

Article -/ was ormulated, there e9isted a whole array o non3motori4ed vehicles ranging rom human3
powered contraption ons
s on wheels such as bicy cyccles, scooters, and anim ima
al3d
3drraw
awn
n carts such
as calesas  and carromata . 'hese modes o transport were even more prevalent on the roads o the -;:<s and
-;/<s than they are today, yet the ramers o the 2ew (ivil (ode chose then to e9clude these alternative modes
rom the scope o Article -/ with the use o the term motori4ed vehicles. I Aonuevo seriously contends that the
application o Article -/ be e9panded due to the greater interaction today o all types o vehicles, such argument
contradicts historical e9perience. 'he ratio o motori4ed vehicles as to non3motori4ed vehicles, as it stood in -;/<,
was signiicantly lower than as it stands today. 'his will be certainly airmed by statistical data, assuming such has
been compiled, much less conirmed by persons over si9ty. Aonuevos characteri4ation o a vibrant intra3road
dynamic between motori4ed and non3motori4ed vehicles is more apropos to the past than to the present.

'here is pertinent basis or segregating between motori4ed and non3motori4ed vehicles. A motori4ed
vehicle, unimpeded by the limitations in physical e9ertion. Is capable o greater speeds and
acceleration than non3motori4ed vehicles. At the sam etime, motori4ed vehicles are more capable in
inlicting greater in$ury or damage in the event o an accident or collision. 'his is due to
a combination o actors peculiar to themotor vehicle, such as the greater speed, its relative greater
bul" o mass, and greater combustibility due to the use o uel.

B. 2egligience on the part o Villagracia

'he e 9iste nce o  neg lige nce i n a g iven case is no t det ermin ed b y the perso nal $udgment o the actor in
a given situation, but rather, it is the law which determines what wou ld be re c" le ss or ne gl ig en t. Año nu ev o
asserts that Villagracia was negligent as the latter had transgressed traic regulations. )owever,
 Añ on uev o wa s sp ee di ng as he ma de th e le t tu rn , and by his own admission, he had seen Villagracia at a
good distance o ten =-<> meters. )ad he been decelerating, as he should, as he made the turn, Aonuevo would
have had ample opportunity to avoid hitting Villagracia, such negligent act was the pro9imate cause o the
accident.

?ven assuming that Añonuevo had ailed to see Villagracia because the bicycle was not e+uipped
with headlights, such lapse on the cyclist!s part would not have ac+uitted the driver o his duty to
slow down as he proceeded to ma"e the let turn.

(. (ontributory 2egligience

'o hold a person as having contributed to his in$uries, it must be shown that he perormed an act that brought about
his in$uries in disregard o warnings or signs o an impending danger to health and body. 6@<8 'o prove contributory
negligence, it is still necessary to establish a causal lin", although not pro9imate, between the negligence o the
party and the succeeding in$ury. In a legal sense, negligence is contributory only when it contributes pro9imately to
the in$ury, and not simply a condition or its occurrence. 6@-8

 As between Añonuevo and Villagracia, the lower courts ad$udged Añonuevo assol el y re spon sib le o r th e
accident. 'he petition does not demonstrate why this inding should be reversed. It is hard
to imagine that the same result would not have occurred even i Villagracia!s bicycle had been
e+uipped with saety e+uipment.