Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Marikina Auto Line Transport Corporation V People of The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    Zandra Andrea Glacita
    203 views2 pages
    The petitioner owned and operated a passenger bus. The bus driver, Suelto, was driving along Kamias Road when the bus suddenly swerved right and struck the terrace of a commercial apartment owned by Valdellon. Valdellon filed criminal and civil complaints against Suelto and the bus company. The court ruled Suelto guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in damage to Valdellon's property. Suelto admitted to swerving the bus right and hitting the terrace. The court found the bus company and Suelto did not prove Suelto acted out of emergency. The damage showed the bus was likely speeding and Suelto did not act as a prudent driver.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    5. Marikina Auto Line Transport Corporation v People of the Philippines.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The petitioner owned and operated a passenger bus. The bus driver, Suelto, was driving along Kamias Road when the bus suddenly swerved right and struck the terrace of a commercial apartment owned by Valdellon. Valdellon filed criminal and civil complaints against Suelto and the bus company. The court ruled Suelto guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in damage to Valdellon's property. Suelto admitted to swerving the bus right and hitting the terrace. The court found the bus company and Suelto did not prove Suelto acted out of emergency. The damage showed the bus was likely speeding and Suelto did not act as a prudent driver.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    203 views2 pages

    Marikina Auto Line Transport Corporation V People of The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    Zandra Andrea Glacita
    The petitioner owned and operated a passenger bus. The bus driver, Suelto, was driving along Kamias Road when the bus suddenly swerved right and struck the terrace of a commercial apartment owned by Valdellon. Valdellon filed criminal and civil complaints against Suelto and the bus company. The court ruled Suelto guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in damage to Valdellon's property. Suelto admitted to swerving the bus right and hitting the terrace. The court found the bus company and Suelto did not prove Suelto acted out of emergency. The damage showed the bus was likely speeding and Suelto did not act as a prudent driver.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    5. Marikina Auto Line Transport Corporation v.

    People of the Philippines

    FACTS:

     Erlinda Valdellon is the owner of a two-door commercial apartment located at No. 31 Kamias Road,
    Quezon City. The petitioner is the owner-operator of a passenger bus, its employee, was assigned as
    the regular driver of the bus.
     On 1992, Suelto was driving the passenger bus along Kamias Road, Kamuning, Quezon City, going
    towards EDSA. The bus suddenly swerved to the right and struck the terrace of the commercial
    apartment owned by Valdellon. Upon Valdellon’s request, the court ordered Sergio Pontiveros, the
    Senior Building Inspection Officer of the City Engineer’s Office, to inspect the damaged terrace.
     He recommended that since the structural members made of concrete had been displaced, the terrace
    would have to be demolished “to keep its monolithicness, and to insure the safety and stability of the
    building.
     In a letter addressed to the bus company and Suelto, Valdellon demanded payment of P148,440.00,
    within 10 days from receipt thereof, to cover the cost of the damage to the terrace. The bus company
    and Suelto offered a P30,000.00 settlement which Valdellon refused.
     Valdellon filed a criminal complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property against
    Suelto.
     Valdellon also filed a separate civil complaint against Suelto and the bus company for damages. She
    prayed that after due proceedings, judgment be rendered in her favour.

    ISSUE: Whether or not Suelto is guilty of reckless imprudence which resulted in the damage of Valdellon’s
    property?

    RULING: YES. Respondent was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Petitioner swerved the bus to the
    right with recklessness, thereby causing damage to the terrace of Private Respondent’s apartment.

    Although she did not testify to seeing the incident as it happened, Petitioner Suelto himself admitted this in his
    answer to the complaint and when he testified in the trial court.

    Suelto narrated that he suddenly swerved the bus to the right of the road causing it to hit the column of the
    terrace of Private Respondent. Petitioners were burdened to prove that the damage to the terrace of Private
    Respondent was not the fault of Petitioner Suelto. We have reviewed the evidence on record and find that
    petitioners failed to prove that petitioner acted on an emergency caused by the sudden intrusion of a
    passenger jeepney into the lane of the bus he was driving.
    It was the burden of petitioner to prove petitioner Suelto’s defense that he acted on an emergency, that is, he
    had to swerve the bus to the right to avoid colliding with a passenger jeep coming from EDSA that had
    overtaken another vehicle and intruded into the lane of bus.

    It is clear from the photographs submitted by the prosecution that the commercial apartment of Dr. Valdellon
    sustained heavy damage caused by the bus being driven by Suelto. It seems highly improbable that the said
    damages were not caused by a strong impact. And, it is quite reasonable to conclude that, at the time of the
    impact, the bus was traveling at a high speed when Suelto tried to avoid the passenger jeepney.

    The damages could not have been caused except by a speeding bus. Had the accused not been speeding, he
    could have easily reduced his speed and come to a full stop when he noticed the jeep. Were he more prudent
    in driving, he could have avoided the incident or even if he could not avoid the incident, the damages would
    have been less severe.

    The severe damages sustained could not have resulted had the accused acted as a reasonable and prudent
    man would. The accused was not diligent as he claims to be. What is more probable is that the accused had to
    swerve to the right and hit the commercial apartment of the plaintiff because he could not make a full stop as
    he was driving too fast in a usually crowded street

    You might also like