[ GR NO. 159270, Aug 22, 2005 ]PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. CA
FACTS:
Pampanga Sugar Development Company, Inc. (PASUDECO)
transports sugarcane from Mabalacat and Magalang, Pampanga. When the Mount
Pinatubo eruption of 1991 heavily damaged the national bridges along
Abacan-Angeles and Sapang Maragul via Magalang, Pampanga, it requested
permission from the Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) for its trucks to enter and
pass through the North Luzon Expressway (NLEX) via Dau-Sta. Ines from
Mabalacat, and via Angeles from Magalang, and exit at San Fernando going to its
milling factory. The TRB furnished the Philippine National Construction
Corporation (PNCC) (the franchisee that operates and maintains the toll
facilities in the North and South Luzon Toll Expressways) with a copy of the
said request for it to comment thereon.
On November 5, 1991, TRB and PASUDECO entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement, where the latter was allowed to enter and pass through
the NLEX on the following terms and conditions:
1.
PASUDECO trucks should move in convoy;
2.
Said trucks will stay on the right lane;
3.
A vehicle with blinking lights should be
assigned at the rear end of the convoy with a sign which should read as
follows: Caution: CONVOY AHEAD!!!;
4.
Tollway safety measures should be properly
observed;
5.
Accidents or damages to the toll facilities
arising out of any activity related to this approval shall be the
responsibility of PASUDECO;
6.
PASUDECO shall be responsible in towing their
stalled trucks immediately to avoid any inconvenience to the other motorists;
7.
This request will be in force only while the
national bridges along Abacan-Angeles and Sapang Maragul via Magalang remain
impassable.
At around 2:30 a.m. on January 23, 1993, Alex Sendin, the
PNCC security supervisor, and his co-employees Eduardo Ducusin and Vicente
Pascual were patrolling Km. 72 going north of the NLEX. They saw a pile of
sugarcane in the middle portion of the north and southbound lanes of the road.
They placed lit cans with diesel oil in the north and southbound lanes,
including lane dividers with reflectorized markings, to warn motorists of the
obstruction. Sendin, Ducusin and Pascual proceeded to the PASUDECO office,
believing that the pile of sugarcane belonged to it since it was the only milling
company in the area. They requested for a payloader or grader to clear the
area. However, Engineer Oscar Mallari, PASUDECO's equipment supervisor and
transportation superintendent, told them that no equipment operator was
available as it was still very early. Nonetheless, Mallari told them that he
would send someone to clear the affected area. Thereafter, Sendin and company
went back to Km. 72 and manned the traffic. At around 4:00 a.m., 5 PASUDECO men
arrived, and started clearing the highway of the sugarcane. They stacked the
sugarcane at the side of the road. The men left the area at around 5:40 a.m.,
leaving a few flattened sugarcanes scattered on the road. As the bulk of the
sugarcanes had been piled and transferred along the roadside, Sendin thought
there was no longer a need to man the traffic. As dawn was already approaching,
Sendin and company removed the lighted cans and lane dividers. Sendin went to
his office in Sta. Rita, Guiguinto, Bulacan, and made the necessary report.
At about 6:30 a.m., Rodrigo S. Arnaiz, was driving his
two-door Toyota Corolla along the NLEX at about 65 kilometers per hour. He was
with his sister Regina Latagan, and his friend Ricardo Generalao; they were on
their way to Baguio to attend their grandmother's first death anniversary. As
the vehicle ran over the scattered sugarcane, it flew out of control and turned
turtle several times. The accident threw the car about fifteen paces away from
the scattered sugarcane.
On March 4, 1993, Arnaiz, Latagan and Generalao filed a complaint
for damages against PASUDECO and PNCC in the RTC of Manila, Branch 16. They
alleged, inter alia, that through its negligence, PNCC failed to keep and
maintain the NLEX safe for motorists when it allowed PASUDECO trucks with
uncovered and unsecured sugarcane to pass through it; that PASUDECO negligently
spilled sugarcanes on the NLEX, and PNCC failed to put up emergency devices to
sufficiently warn approaching motorists of the existence of such spillage; and
that the combined gross negligence of PASUDECO and PNCC was the direct and
proximate cause of the injuries sustained by Latagan and the damage to Arnaiz's
car.
In its Answer, PNCC admitted that it was under contract to
manage the North Luzon Expressway, to keep it safe for motorists. It averred that
the mishap was due to the "unreasonable speed" at which Arnaiz's car
was running, causing it to turn turtle when it passed over some pieces of
flattened sugarcane. It claimed that the proximate cause of the mishap was
PASUDECO's gross negligence in spilling the sugarcane, and its failure to clear
and mop up the area completely. It also alleged that Arnaiz was guilty of
contributory negligence in driving his car at such speed.
The PNCC interposed a compulsory counterclaim against the
plaintiffs and cross-claim against its co-defendant PASUDECO.
PASUDECO adduced evidence that aside from it, there were
other sugarcane mills in the area, like the ARCAM Sugar Central and the Central
Azucarrera de Tarlac; it was only through the expressway that a vehicle could
access these 3 sugar centrals; and PASUDECO was obligated to clear spillages
whether the planters' truck which caused the spillage was bound for PASUDECO,
ARCAM or Central Azucarera.
On rebuttal, PNCC adduced evidence that only planters'
trucks with "PSD" markings were allowed to use the tollway; that all
such trucks would surely enter the PASUDECO compound. Thus, the truck which
spilled sugarcane in January 1993 in Km. 72 was on its way to the PASUDECO
compound.
The RTC rendered its decision in favor of Latagan,
dismissing that of Arnaiz and Generalao for insufficiency of evidence. The case
as against the PNCC was, likewise, dismissed.
The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision with modification. The
appellate court ruled that Arnaiz was negligent in driving his car, but that
such negligence was merely contributory to the cause of the mishap, i.e.,
PASUDECO's failure to properly supervise its men in clearing the affected area.
Its supervisor, Mallari, admitted that he was at his house while their men were
clearing Km. 72. Thus, the appellate court held both PASUDECO and PNCC, jointly
and severally, liable to Latagan.
ISSUE:
WON the CA is correct in making petitioner pncc, jointly and
solidarily, liable with private respondent pasudeco
RULING:
The petition is bereft of merit.
The petitioner is the grantee of a franchise, giving it the
right, privilege and authority to construct, operate and maintain toll
facilities covering the expressways, collectively known as the NLEX. Concomitant
thereto is its right to collect toll fees for the use of the said expressways
and its obligation to keep it safe for motorists.
There are three elements of a quasi-delict: (a) damages
suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some
other person for whose acts he must respond; and (c) the connection of cause
and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages
incurred by the plaintiff.
Negligence is the omission to do something which a
reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent
and reasonable man would do. It also refers to the conduct which creates undue
risk of harm to another, the failure to observe that degree of care, precaution
and vigilance that the circumstance justly demand, whereby that other person
suffers injury.
The test for determining whether a person is negligent in
doing an act whereby injury or damage results to the person or property of
another is this: could a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom
negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable
consequence of the course actually pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty on
the actor to refrain from that course or to take precautions to guard against
its mischievous results, and the failure to do so constitutes negligence.
Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the admonition born
of this provision, is always necessary before negligence can be held to exist.
In the case at bar, it is clear that the petitioner failed
to exercise the requisite diligence in maintaining the NLEX safe for motorists.
The lighted cans and lane dividers on the highway were removed even as
flattened sugarcanes lay scattered on the ground. The highway was still wet
from the juice and sap of the flattened sugarcanes. The petitioner should have
foreseen that the wet condition of the highway would endanger motorists passing
by at night or in the wee hours of the morning.
The petitioner cannot escape liability under the MOA between
PASUDECO and TRB, since respondent Latagan was not a party thereto.
Moreover, the MOA refers to accidents or damages to the toll
facilities. It does not cover damages to property or injuries caused to motorists
on the NLEX who are not privies to the MOA.
PASUDECO's negligence in transporting sugarcanes without
proper harness/straps, and that of PNCC in removing the emergency warning
devices, were two successive negligent acts which were the direct and proximate
cause of Latagan's injuries. As such, PASUDECO and PNCC are jointly and
severally liable.
Comments
Post a Comment