G.R. No.

175512

Vallacar Transit Inc. vs Jocelyn Catubig

May 30, 2011

Facts:

The petitioner, a transportation business owner, is facing a lawsuit for the deaths of her
husband, Quintin Catubig Jr., and his employee, Teddy Emperado. Catubig was driving a motorcycle
when he overtook a cargo truck driven by Cabanilla, which resulted in their deaths. Cabanilla was
charged with reckless imprudence resulting in double homicide, but the MCTC dismissed the charge,
finding no negligence on his part. The respondent filed a Complaint for Damages against the
petitioner, seeking ₱484,000 for her husband's death. The petitioner argued that Catubig's negligence
was the sole cause of the collision.
The pre-trial ensued, with Police Officers Robert B. Elnas, Emilio Espiritu, Dr. Norberto
Baldado, Jr., Peter Cadimas, and respondent herself testifying in support of respondent's complaint.
PO2 Elnas conducted an investigation of the collision incident, which occurred when a bus collided
with a motorcycle trying to overtake a truck. The motorcycle was totaled, and the front wheel and
steering wheel with shock absorbers were found 26 meters and 38 meters, respectively, from the
collision point. Dr. Baldado conducted a post-mortem examination of Catubig's body, revealing injuries
such as laceration and fracture of the right leg, laceration and fracture of the left elbow, multiple
abrasions in the abdominal area, left anterior chest wall, posterior right arm, and at the back of the
left scapular area.
The RTC admitted all of respondent's evidence in an Order dated October 6, 1998. Rosie C.
Amahit and Nunally Maypa took the witness stand for the petitioner, who was responsible for hiring
personnel including drivers and conductors. The RTC ruled that the proximate cause of the collision
was the negligence of the motorcycle driver, Catubig. The respondent appealed to the Court of
Appeals, which ruled that both Catubig and Cabanilla were negligent in driving their vehicles. The
court awarded ₱250,000.00 as full compensation to Catubig's heirs.

Issues:

Whether the petitioner should be held liable for Catubig's death.

Ruling:

NO. The petition for damages against the petitioner was filed under the 1964 Rules of Court in
1995. The 1996 rules required a pleading to be verified by an affidavit stating that the person verifying
has read the pleading and that the allegations are true of their own knowledge. Verifications based on
"information and belief" or upon "knowledge, information and belief," shall be deemed insufficient.
The 1997 Rules of Court, even before its amendment by A.M. No. 00-2-10, clearly states that a
pleading lacking proper verification is to be treated as an unsigned pleading which produces no legal
effect.
The court ruled that all complaints, petitions, applications, and initiatory pleadings must be
accompanied by a certificate against forum shopping, which was first prescribed by Administrative
Circular No. 04-94 and later by Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Court. The court agreed with the
petitioner that respondent was unable to prove imputable negligence on the part of respondent. The
court restated the principle that in a petition for review under Rule 45, only questions of law may be
raised. However, the court admits certain exceptions, such as contradictory factual findings,
speculation, abuse of discretion, and misapprehension of facts.
The respondent based her claim for damages on Article 2180, in relation to Article 2176, of the
Civil Code, which states that whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault
or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. The petitioner argued that Article 2180 of the
Civil Code does not apply to the petitioner since the fault or negligence of its employee driver,
Cabanilla, which would have made the latter liable for quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil
Code, has never been established by respondent.
The RTC concluded that the immediate and proximate cause of the collision was the reckless
and negligent act of Quintin Catubig, Jr., not because the Ceres Bus was running very fast. The
evidence showed that the driver of the bus, Cabanilla, was driving his vehicle along the proper lane,
while the driver of the motorcycle, Catubig, had overtaken a vehicle ahead of him as he was
approaching a curvature on the road, in disregard of the provision of the law on reckless driving, at the
risk of his life and that of his employee, Emperado.

The presumption that employers are negligent under Article 2180 of the Civil Code arises from
the negligence of their employees. The court determined that the immediate cause of Catubig's death
was his own negligence, and no fault or negligence on Cabanilla's part. Therefore, the presumption of
fault or negligence on the part of the petitioner, as Cabanilla's employer, does not arise. The petition is
granted, and the Court Appeals decisions in CA-G.R. CV No. 66815 and Civil Case No. 11360 are set
aside, and the Regional Trial Court's decision dismissing Civil Case No. 11360 is reinstated.