G.R. No.

214898 June 08, 2020

Edison Prieto and Federico Rondal, Jr., petitioners

vs.
Erlinda Cajimat, respondent

Hernando, J.:

Facts:
On January 14, 2003, petitioner Rondal Jr., was driving a red Yamaha Tricycle, overtook two
tricycles in front of him which resulted in a collision with a black Yamaha “chop-chop”
motorcycle driven by Narciso Cajimat III, who suffered a fractured skull that led to his death.

A criminal case of Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide was filed against petitioner
Rondal Jr., but the deceased mother, respondent Erlinda Cajimat, filed a separate civil action for
damages before the RTC against Rondal Jr. and Prieto, the registered owner of the Red Yamaha
Tricycle. Erlinda pointed out that the direct, immediate, and proximate cause of the collision was
Rondal Jr.’s gross negligence in managing, driving, and operating the red Yamaha Tricycle. She
further asserted that the latter had no driver’s license and was intoxicated at the time of the
incident. Prieto, in his defense, asserted that Rondal Jr. took and drove the said tricycle without
his consent and permission. The latter also contended that the collision was caused by the
deceased Cajimat III’s negligence, recklessness, and imprudence by driving an unregistered
“chop-chop” motor vehicle.

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court found the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide. The Regional Trial Court found the petitioners
negligent and are civilly liable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts’ ruling and stated
that the registered owner of the motor vehicle is the employer of the negligent driver, and Prieto
is liable for his failure to exercise due diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage
and in the selection of his employee. Thus, resulting in this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not the proximate cause of Cajimat III’s death is due to his own negligence.

Ruling:
Petition denied. The Supreme Court stated that the issue raised by the petitioners is a question of
fact and the burden of proof lies in their hands. The petitioners failed to assail their claim and it
is not the Court’s function to examine, review, or evaluate the evidence all over again.