Raynera V Hiceta

EDNA A.
RAYNERA, for herself and on behalf of the minors RIANNA and

REIANNE RAYNERA, Petitioners, v. FREDDIE HICETA and JIMMY
ORPILLA, Respondents.
DECISION
PARDO, J.:
The case is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the

Court of Appeals,1 reversing that of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
45, Manila.2
The rule is well-settled that factual findings of the Court of Appeals

are generally considered final and may not be reviewed on appeal.
However, this principle admits of certain exceptions, among which is
when the findings of the appellate court are contrary to those of the
trial court, a re-examination of the facts and evidence may be
undertaken.3 This case falls under the cited exception.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Petitioner Edna A. Raynera was the widow of Reynaldo Raynera and

the mother and legal guardian of the minors Rianna and Reianne, both
surnamed Raynera. Respondents Freddie Hiceta and Jimmy Orpilla
were the owner and driver, respectively, of an Isuzu truck-trailer, with
plate No. NXC 848, involved in the accident.
On March 23, 1989, at about 2:00 in the morning, Reynaldo Raynera

was on his way home. He was riding a motorcycle traveling on the
southbound lane of East Service Road, Cupang, Muntinlupa. The Isuzu
truck was travelling ahead of him at 20 to 30 kilometers per
hour.4 The truck was loaded with two (2) metal sheets extended on
both sides, two (2) feet on the left and three (3) feet on the right.
There were two (2) pairs of red lights, about 35 watts each, on both
sides of the metal plates.5 The asphalt road was not well lighted.
At some point on the road, Reynaldo Raynera crashed his motorcycle

into the left rear portion of the truck trailer, which was without tail
lights. Due to the collision, Reynaldo sustained head injuries and truck
helper Geraldino D. Lucelo6 rushed him to the Paraaque Medical
Center. Upon arrival at the hospital, the attending physician, Dr.
Marivic Aguirre,7 pronounced Reynaldo Raynera dead on arrival.
At the time of his death, Reynaldo was manager of the Engineering

Department, Kawasaki Motors (Phils.) Corporation. He was 32 years
old, had a life expectancy of sixty five (65) years, and an annual net
earnings of not less than seventy three thousand five hundred
(P73,500.00) pesos,8 with a potential increase in annual net earnings
of not less than ten percent (10%) of his salary.9
On May 12, 1989, the heirs of the deceased demanded10 from

respondents payment of damages arising from the death of Reynaldo
Raynera as a result of the vehicular accident. The respondents refused
to pay the claims.
On September 13, 1989, petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court,
Manila11 a complaint12 for damages against respondents owner and
driver of the Isuzu truck.
In their complaint against respondents, petitioners sought recovery of

damages for the death of Reynaldo Raynera caused by the negligent
operation of the truck-trailer at nighttime on the highway, without tail
lights.
In their answer filed on April 4, 1990, respondents alleged that the

truck was travelling slowly on the service road, not parked improperly
at a dark portion of the road, with no tail lights, license plate and early
warning device.
At the trial, petitioners presented Virgilio Santos. He testified that at

about 1:00 and 2:00 in the morning of March 23, 1989, he and his wife
went to Alabang market, on board a tricycle. They passed by the
service road going south, and saw a parked truck trailer, with its hood
open and without tail lights. They would have bumped the truck but
the tricycle driver was quick in avoiding a collision. The place was
dark, and the truck had no early warning device to alert passing
motorists.13
On the other hand, respondents presented truck helper Geraldino

Lucelo.14 He testified that at the time the incident happened, the truck
was slowly traveling at approximately 20 to 30 kilometers per hour.
Another employee of respondents, auto-mechanic Rogoberto
Reyes,15 testified that at about 3:00 in the afternoon of March 22,
1989, with the help of Lucelo, he installed two (2) pairs of red lights,
about 30 to 40 watts each, on both sides of the steel plates.16 On his
part, traffic investigation officer Cpl. Virgilio del Monte17 admitted that
these lights were visible at a distance of 100 meters.
On December 19, 1991, the trial court rendered decision in favor of
petitioners. It found respondents Freddie Hiceta and Jimmy Orpilla
negligent in view of these circumstances: (1) the truck trailer had no
license plate and tail lights; (2) there were only two pairs of red lights,
50 watts18 each, on both sides of the steel plates; and (3) the truck
trailer was improperly parked in a dark area.
The trial court held that respondents negligence was the immediate
and proximate cause of Reynaldo Rayneras death, for which they are
jointly and severally liable to pay damages to petitioners. The trial
court also held that the victim was himself negligent, although this
was insufficient to overcome respondents negligence. The trial court
applied the doctrine of contributory negligence19 and reduced the
responsibility of respondents by 20% on account of the victims own
negligence.
The dispositive portion of the lower courts decision reads as follows:
All things considered, the Court is of the opinion that it is fair and
reasonable to fix the living and other expenses of the deceased the
sum of P54,000.00 a year or about P4,500.00 a month (P150.00 p/d)
and that, consequently, the loss or damage sustained by the plaintiffs
may be estimated at P1,674,000.00 for the 31 years of Reynaldo
Rayneras life expectancy.
Taking into account the cooperative negligence of the deceased

Reynaldo Raynera, the Court believes that the demand of substantial
justice are satisfied by allocating the damages on 80-20 ratio.
Thus, P1,337,200.00 shall be paid by the defendants with interest
thereon, at the legal rate, from date of decision, as damages for the
loss of earnings. To this sum, the following shall be added:
(a) P33,412.00, actually spent for funeral services, interment and

memorial lot;
(b) P20,000.00 as attorneys fees;
(c) cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.20 cräläwvirt ualibräry
On January 10, 1992, respondents Hiceta and Orpilla appealed to the

Court of Appeals.21
After due proceedings, on April 28, 1995, the Court of Appeals
rendered decision setting aside the appealed decision. The appellate
court held that Reynaldo Rayneras bumping into the left rear portion
of the truck was the proximate cause of his death,22and consequently,
absolved respondents from liability.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
In this petition, the heirs of Reynaldo Raynera contend that the

appellate court erred in: (1) overturning the trial courts finding that
respondents negligent operation of the Isuzu truck was the proximate
cause of the victims death; (2) applying the doctrine of last clear
chance; (3) setting aside the trial courts award of actual and
compensatory damages.
The issues presented are (a) whether respondents were negligent,

and if so, (b) whether such negligence was the proximate cause of the
death of Reynaldo Raynera.
Petitioners maintain that the proximate cause of Reynaldo Rayneras

death was respondents negligence in operating the truck trailer on the
highway without tail lights and license plate.
The Court finds no reason to disturb the factual findings of the Court
of Appeals.
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 not do.23
Proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and continuous

sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. 24
During the trial, it was established that the truck had no tail lights.
The photographs taken of the scene of the accident showed that there
were no tail lights or license plates installed on the Isuzu truck.
Instead, what were installed were two (2) pairs of lights on top of the
steel plates, and one (1) pair of lights in front of the truck. With
regard to the rear of the truck, the photos taken and the sketch in the
spot report proved that there were no tail lights.
Despite the absence of tail lights and license plate, respondents truck
was visible in the highway. It was traveling at a moderate speed,
approximately 20 to 30 kilometers per hour. It used the service road,
instead of the highway, because the cargo they were hauling posed a
danger to passing motorists. In compliance with the Land
Transportation Traffic Code (Republic Act No. 4136)25respondents
installed 2 pairs of lights on top of the steel plates, as the vehicles
cargo load extended beyond the bed or body thereof.
We find that the direct cause of the accident was the negligence of the
victim. Traveling behind the truck, he had the responsibility of
avoiding bumping the vehicle in front of him. He was in control of the
situation. His motorcycle was equipped with headlights to enable him
to see what was in front of him. He was traversing the service road
where the prescribed speed limit was less than that in the highway.
Traffic investigator Cpl. Virgilio del Monte testified that two pairs of
50-watts bulbs were on top of the steel plates,26 which were visible
from a distance of 100 meters.27 Virgilio Santos admitted that from the
tricycle where he was on board, he saw the truck and its cargo of iron
plates from a distance of ten (10) meters.28In light of these
circumstances, an accident could have been easily avoided, unless the
victim had been driving too fast and did not exercise due care and
prudence demanded of him under the circumstances.
Virgilio Santos testimony strengthened respondents defense that it

was the victim who was reckless and negligent in driving his
motorcycle at high speed. The tricycle where Santos was on board was
not much different from the victims motorcycle that figured in the
accident. Although Santos claimed the tricycle almost bumped into the
improperly parked truck, the tricycle driver was able to avoid hitting
the truck.
It has been said that drivers of vehicles who bump the rear of another
vehicle are presumed to be the cause of the accident, unless
contradicted by other evidence.29 The rationale behind the
presumption is that the driver of the rear vehicle has full control of the
situation as he is in a position to observe the vehicle in front of him.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that the responsibility to avoid the
collision with the front vehicle lies with the driver of the rear vehicle.
Consequently, no other person was to blame but the victim himself

since he was the one who bumped his motorcycle into the rear of the
Isuzu truck. He had the last clear chance of avoiding the accident.
WHEREFORE, we DENYthe petition for review on certiorari and
AFFIRMthe decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. CV No. 35895,
dismissing the amended complaint in Civil Case No. 89-50355,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 45, Manila.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Raynera V Hiceta

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Raynera V Hiceta

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EDNA A.

RAYNERA, for herself and on behalf of the minors RIANNA and

The case is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the

The rule is well-settled that factual findings of the Court of Appeals

The antecedent facts are as follows:

Petitioner Edna A. Raynera was the widow of Reynaldo Raynera and

On March 23, 1989, at about 2:00 in the morning, Reynaldo Raynera

At some point on the road, Reynaldo Raynera crashed his motorcycle

At the time of his death, Reynaldo was manager of the Engineering

On May 12, 1989, the heirs of the deceased demanded10 from

In their complaint against respondents, petitioners sought recovery of

In their answer filed on April 4, 1990, respondents alleged that the

At the trial, petitioners presented Virgilio Santos. He testified that at

On the other hand, respondents presented truck helper Geraldino

The dispositive portion of the lower courts decision reads as follows:

Taking into account the cooperative negligence of the deceased

(a) P33,412.00, actually spent for funeral services, interment and

(b) P20,000.00 as attorneys fees;

(c) cost of suit.

SO ORDERED.20 cräläwvirt ualibräry

On January 10, 1992, respondents Hiceta and Orpilla appealed to the

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

In this petition, the heirs of Reynaldo Raynera contend that the

The issues presented are (a) whether respondents were negligent,

Petitioners maintain that the proximate cause of Reynaldo Rayneras

Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man,

Proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and continuous

Virgilio Santos testimony strengthened respondents defense that it

Consequently, no other person was to blame but the victim himself

You might also like