Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Raynera V Hiceta
Raynera V Hiceta
DECISION
PARDO, J.:
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.
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.
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.
The Court finds no reason to disturb the factual findings of the Court
of Appeals.
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.
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.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.