Presumption of Negligence

JUNTILLA vs FONTANAR

Facts:

 The jeepney was driven by defendant Berfol Camoro. It was registered under the franchise of
defendant Clemente Fontanar but was actually owned by defendant Fernando Banzon.

 When the jeepney reached Mandaue City, the right rear tire exploded causing the vehicle to turn
turtle. In the process, the plaintiff who was sitting at the front seat was thrown out of the
vehicle.

 Upon landing on the ground, the plaintiff momentarily lost

consciousness. When he came to his senses, he found that he had a lacerated wound on his right
palm. Aside from this, he suffered injuries on his left arm, right thigh and on his back.

 Petitioner Roberto Juntilla filed Civil Case No. R-1 7378 for breach of contract with damages
before the City Court of Cebu City, Branch I against Clemente Fontanar, Fernando Banzon and
Berfol Camoro.

Issue: Whether or not the defendants were negligent.

Held: YES

 While it may be true that the tire that blew-up was still good because the grooves of the tire
were still visible, this fact alone does not make the explosion of the tire a fortuitous event.

 No evidence was presented to show that the accident was due to adverse road conditions or that
precautions were taken by the jeepney driver to compensate for any conditions liable to cause
accidents.

 The sudden blowing-up, therefore, could have been caused by too much air pressure injected
into the tire coupled by the fact that the jeepney was overloaded and speeding at the time of the
accident.

 In the case at bar, the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence was not independent
of the human will. The accident was caused either through the negligence of the driver or
because of mechanical defects in the tire.

 It is sufficient to reiterate that the source of a common carrier's legal liability is the contract of
carriage, and by entering into the said contract, it binds itself to carry the passengers safely as
far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of a very cautious
person, with a due regard for all the circumstances. The records show that this obligation was
not met by the respondents.

BAYASEN vs CA
 Presumption of Negligence

Facts:

 Saturnino Bayasen, the Rural Health Physician in Sagada, Mountain Province, went to barrio
Ambasing to visit a patient.
 Two nurses from the Saint Theodore's Hospital in Sagada, viz., Elena Awichen and Dolores
Balcita, rode with him in the jeep assigned for the use of the Rural Health Unit as they had
requested for a ride to Ambasing.
 Later, at Ambasing, the girls, who wanted to gather flowers, again asked if they could ride with
him up to a certain place on the way to barrio Suyo which he intended to visit anyway.
 Dr. Bayasen again allowed them to ride, Elena sitting herself between him and Dolores. On the
way, at barrio Langtiw, the jeep went over a precipice. About 8 feet below the road, it was
blocked by a pine tree.
 The three, were thrown out of the jeep. Elena was found lying in a creek further below. Among
other injuries, she suffered a skull fracture which caused her death.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner is negligent.

Held:

 It is obvious that the proximate cause of the tragedy was the skidding of the rear wheels of the
jeep and not the "unreasonable speed" of the petitioner because there is no evidence on record
to prove or support the finding that the petitioner was driving at "an unreasonable speed".

 It is a well known physical fact that cars may skid on greasy or slippery roads, as in the instant
case, without fault on account of the manner of handling the car.

 Skidding means partial or complete loss of control of the car under circumstances not necessarily
implying negligence. It may occur without fault.

 No negligence as a matter of law can, therefore, be charged to the petitioner. In fact, the
moment he felt that the rear wheels of the jeep skidded, he promptly drove it to the left hand
side of the road, parallel to the slope of the mountain, because as he said, he wanted to play
safe and avoid the embankment.

 Under the particular circumstances of the instant case, the petitioner-driver who skidded could
not be regarded as negligent, the skidding being an unforeseen event, so that the petitioner had
a valid excuse for his departure from his regular course

CERVANTES vs CA

Facts:
 Presumption of Negligence

 Philippine Air Lines, Inc. (PAL) issued to Nicholas Cervantes a round trip plane ticket for Manila-
Honolulu-Los Angeles-Honolulu-Manila, which ticket expressly provided an expiry date of one
year from issuance, i.e., until March 27, 1 990.

 On March 23, 1990, the petitioner used it. Upon his arrival in Los Angeles on the same day, he
immediately booked his Los Angeles-Manila return ticket with the PAL office, and it was
confirmed for the April 2, 1990 flight.

 However, upon learning that the same PAL plane would make a stop-over in San Francisco, and
considering that he would be there on April 2 ,1990, petitioner made arrangements with PAL for
him to board the flight in San Francisco instead of boarding in Los Angeles. On April 2, 1 990,
when the petitioner checked in at the PAL counter in San Francisco, he was not allowed to board
by the PAL personnel due to the expiration of validity of his ticket.

 Thus, Cervantes filed a Complaint for Damages for breach of contract of carriage and before the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Surigao del Norte. He claimed that the act of the PAL agents in
confirming his ticket extended its period of validity. But the trial court dismissed the complaint for
lack of merit. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.

Issue: Whether or not the agents of PAL were negligent in confirming petitioner’s ticket without
authority.

Held: NO.

 From the aforestated facts, it can be gleaned that the petitioner was fully aware that there was a
need to send a letter to the legal counsel of PAL for the extension of the period of validity of his
ticket.

 Since the PAL agents are not privy to the said Agreement and petitioner knew that a written
request to the legal counsel of PAL was necessary, he cannot use what the PAL agents did to his
advantage.

 The said agents, according to the Court of Appeals, acted without authority when they confirmed
the flights of the petitioner.

 Under Article 1898 of the New Civil Code, the acts of an agent beyond the scope of his authority
do not bind the principal, unless the latter ratifies the same expressly or impliedly.
 Furthermore, when the third person (herein petitioner) knows that the agent was acting beyond
his power or authority, the principal cannot be held liable for the acts of the agent. If the said
third person is aware of such limits of authority, he is to blame, and is not entitled to recover
damages from the agent, unless the latter undertook to secure the principal's ratification.

Calalas vs CA (refer to Extraordinary Diligence)

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines vs IAC (refer to Extraordinary Diligence)

 Presumption of Negligence

LUDO and LUYM CORPORATION vs CA

Facts:

 When private respondents' vessel came to dock at petitioner's wharf, it rammed and destroyed a
fender pile cluster. Petitioner subsequently filed a damage suit for the cost of repair.
 Eyewitness Naval, petitioner's employee, testified that he guided the vessel to its docking place
and shouted "Reverse" to the vessel's crew, but it was too late when the latter responded.
 Petitioners' witnesses, marine surveyor Degamo and diver Alferez who dived two or three times
after the incident, confirmed the damage caused by private respondents' vessel.
 On the other hand, private respondents presented diver, Lazara, a mere bodegero, who stated
that there was no damage, but later testified in court that he found a crack on one side of the
pile cluster and saw seashells and seaweeds underneath an uprooted post.
 After trial, the trial court rendered judgment ordering private respondents to pay damages to
petitioner.
 The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the decision, finding: petitioner's eyewitness Naval as
incompetent; there were other vessels which also used the wharf for berthing; there was no
positive proof to show that it was private respondents' vessel which rammed the pile cluster; and
the seashells and seaweeds under the uprooted post indicated that the breaking happened a long
time ago.

Issue: Whether or not private respondent is negligent.

Held: YES

 In our view, all the requisites for recourse to this doctrine exist. First, MV Miguela was under the
exclusive control of its officers and crew. Petitioner did not have direct evidence on what
transpired within as the officers and crew maneuvered the vessel to its berthing place. We note
the Court of Appeals' finding that Naval and Espina were not knowledgeable on the vessel's
maneuverings, and could not testify on the negligence of the officers and crew.
 Second, aside from the testimony that MV Miguela rammed the cluster pile, private respondent
did not show persuasively other possible causes of the
damage.
 Applying now the above, there exists a presumption of negligence against private respondents
which we opine the latter failed to overcome.
 Additionally, petitioner presented tangible proof that demonstrated private respondents'
negligence. As testified by Capt. Olasiman, from command of "slow ahead" to "stop engine", the
vessel will still travel 100 meters before it finally stops. However, he ordered "stop engine" when
the vessel was only 50 meters from the pier. Further, he testified that before the vessel is put to
slow astern, the engine has to be restarted. However, Olasiman cannot estimate how long it
takes before the engine goes to slow astern after the engine is restarted.
 From these declarations, the conclusion is that it was already too late when the captain ordered
reverse. By then, the vessel was only 4 meters from the pier, and thus rammed it.

PESTANO vs SPOUSES SUMAYANG

Facts:

 Ananias Sumayang was riding a motorcycle along the national highway in Ilihan, Tabagon, Cebu.
Riding with him was his friend Manuel Romagos.
 Presumption of Negligence

 As they came upon a junction, a passenger bus driven by petitioner Gregorio Pestaño and owned
by Petitioner Metro Cebu Autobus Corporation hit them.
 The bus had tried to overtake them sending the motorcycle and its passengers hurtling upon the
pavement. Both Ananias Sumayang and Manuel Romagos died.

 The Regional Trial Court found petitioners liable for death indemnity, loss of earning capacity of
the deceased Ananias Sumayang, and for necessary interment expenses.

 The Court of Appeals affirmed petitioners' liability for the accident and for Sumayang's death. It
agreed with the trial court that the vehicular collision was caused by Pestaño's negligence when
he attempted to overtake the motorcycle.

 The appellate court opined that petitioner Metro Bus had shown laxity in the conduct of its
operations and in the supervision of its employees when it allowed petitioner Pestaño to ply his
route despite the defective speedometer.

 Having failed to observe the extraordinary diligence required of public transportation companies,
it was held vicariously liable to the victims of the vehicular accident.

Issue: Whether or not petitioners were negligent.

Held: YES

 When an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or an employee, the master or employer
is presumed to be negligent either in the selection or in the supervision of that employee.

 This presumption may be overcome only by satisfactorily showing that the employer exercised
the care and the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and the supervision of its
employee.

 The negligence alluded to here is in its supervision over its driver, not in that which directly
caused the accident.

 The fact that Pestaño was able to use a bus with a faulty speedometer shows that Metro Cebu
was remiss in the supervision of its employees and in the proper care of its vehicles.

 It had thus failed to conduct its business with the diligence required by law. The Court,
therefore, affirmed the decision of the appellate court