Medardo Ag. Cadiente vs. Bithuel Macas G.R. No 161946 - November 14, 2008

ARTICLE 2180 CA: On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.
Hence, this petition.

MEDARDO AG. CADIENTE vs. BITHUEL MACAS
G.R. No 161946 | November 14, 2008 Petitioners’ Contention: Cadiente contends that Macas’ negligence
Ratio: The underlying precept on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff contributed to his own mishap. Further, he argues that having filed a third-
who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover party complaint against Jalipa, the CA should have ordered the latter to
damages in full, but must proportionately bear the consequences of his own reimburse him for any amount he would be made to pay Macas, instead of
negligence. The defendant is thus held liable only for the damages actually ordering him solidarily liable for damages.
caused by his negligence.
Respondent’s Arguments: Macas counters that the immediate and
In this case, the victim was just where he should be when the unfortunate proximate cause of the injuries he suffered was the recklessly driven Ford
event transpired. However, the Ford Fiera recklessly bumped and ran over Fiera, which was registered in Cadiente's name. He insists that when he was
an innocent victim. Thus, we are unable to accept the petitioner's contention hit by the vehicle, he was standing on the uncemented portion of the highway,
that the respondent was negligent. which was exactly where pedestrians were supposed to be.
Facts: On July 19, 1994, at about 4:00 p.m., at the intersection of Buhangin
and San Vicente Streets in Davao City, respondent Bithuel Macas (Macas), Moreover, as the registered owner of the Ford Fiera which figured in the
a 15-year old high school student, was standing on the shoulder of the road. accident, Cadiente is primarily liable for the injury caused by the said vehicle.
Macas was bumped and run over by a Ford Fiera, driven by Chona Macas maintains that the alleged sale of the vehicle to Jalipa was tainted with
Cimafranca (Cimafranca), but registered in the name of petitioner Atty. irregularity, which indicated collusion between Cadiente and Jalipa.
Medardo Cadiente (Cadiente). Issues:
Cimafranca rushed Macas to the Davao Medical Center. The orthopedic 1. Whether or not there was contributory negligence on the part of the
surgeon testified that Macas suffered severe muscular and major vessel victim. (NO)
injuries, as well as open bone fractures in both thighs and other parts of his 2. Whether or not the petitioner and third-party defendant Jalipa are
legs. In order to save his life, the surgeon had to amputate both legs up to jointly and severally liable to the victim. (YES)
the groins. Held:
Cimafranca had since absconded and disappeared. For his part, Cadiente On Contributory Negligence
claimed that when the accident happened, he was no longer the owner of the
Ford Fiera. He alleged that he sold the vehicle to Engr. Rogelio Jalipa (Jalipa) 1. NO. Article 2179 of the Civil Code provides:
and turned over the Certificate of Registration and Official Receipt to Jalipa,
with the understanding that the latter would be the one to cause the transfer When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and
of the registration. proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his
negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate
Consequently, Macas’ father filed a complaint for torts and damages against cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the
Cimafranca and Cadiente before the RTC. Cadiente later filed a third-party plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the
complaint against Jalipa. In answer, Jalipa claimed that he was no longer the damages to be awarded.
owner of the Ford Fiera at the time of the accident. He alleged that he sold
the vehicle to Abraham Abubakar. He thus filed a fourth-party complaint The underlying precept on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is
against Abubakar. partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover
damages in full, but must proportionately bear the consequences of his own
RTC: The trial court ruled in favor of Macas. It declared Cadiente and Jalipa negligence. The defendant is thus held liable only for the damages actually
jointly and severally liable for damages to Macas for their own negligence. caused by his negligence.
In this case, records show that when the accident happened, the victim was
standing on the shoulder, which was the uncemented portion of the highway.
As noted by the trial court, the shoulder was intended for pedestrian use
alone. Only stationary vehicles, such as those loading or unloading
passengers may use the shoulder. Running vehicles are not supposed to
pass through the said uncemented portion of the highway. However, the Ford
Fiera in this case, without so much as slowing down, took off from the
cemented part of the highway, inexplicably swerved to the shoulder, and
recklessly bumped and ran over an innocent victim. The victim was just
where he should be when the unfortunate event transpired.
Cimafranca, on the other hand, had no rightful business driving as recklessly

as she did. The respondent cannot be expected to have foreseen that the
Ford Fiera, erstwhile speeding along the cemented part of the highway would
suddenly swerve to the shoulder, then bump and run him over. Thus, we are
unable to accept the petitioner's contention that the respondent was
negligent.
On Liability
2. YES. The registered owner of any vehicle, even if he had already sold it to
someone else, is primarily responsible to the public for whatever damage or
injury the vehicle may cause.
In the case of Villanueva v. Domingo, we said that the policy behind vehicle
registration is the easy identification of the owner who can be held
responsible in case of accident, damage or injury caused by the vehicle. This
is so as not to inconvenience or prejudice a third party injured by one whose
identity cannot be secured.
Therefore, since the Ford Fiera was still registered in the petitioner's name at
the time when the misfortune took place, the petitioner cannot escape liability
for the permanent injury it caused the respondent, who had since stopped
schooling and is now forced to face life with nary but two remaining limbs.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of
merit. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are
hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.
Case Digest: Garcia, A.R.G.

Medardo Ag. Cadiente vs. Bithuel Macas G.R. No 161946 - November 14, 2008

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

Medardo Ag. Cadiente vs. Bithuel Macas G.R. No 161946 - November 14, 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARTICLE 2180 CA: On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Hence, this petition.

Cimafranca, on the other hand, had no rightful business driving as recklessly

You might also like