ALBERT TISON and CLAUDIO L. JABO vs. SPS.

GREGORIO POMASIN and CONSORCIA

Involved:
On board a jitney: Gregorio Pomasin (Gregorio), Laarni Pomasin (daughter, the driver),
Andrea Pomasin Pagunsan, Annie Jane Pomasin Pagunsan, sister Narcisa Pomasin Roncales,
Abraham Dionisio Perol, Consorcia Pomasin, granddaughter Dianne Pomasin Pagunsan, Ricky
Ponce, Vicente Pomasin, Gina Sesista, Reynaldo Sesista, Antonio Sesista and Sonia Perol
(overloaded)
On board a tractor-trailer: Jabon (driver), Albert Tison (owner; not on board)
Doctrine: Article 2176 of the Civil Code, whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. To sustain a
claim based on quasi-delict, the following requisites must concur: (a) damage suffered by the
plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of defendant; and (c) connection of cause and effect between the
fault or negligence of defendant and the damage incurred by the plaintiff. These requisites must
be proved by a preponderance of evidence, evidence which is of greater weight, or more
convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it.
Intro: Two vehicles, a tractor-trailer and a jitney, figured in a vehicular mishap along Maharlika
Highway in Barangay Agos, Polangui, Albay last 12 August 1994. Laarni Pomasin (Laarni) was
driving the jitney towards the direction of Legaspi City while the tractor-trailer, driven by Claudio
Jabon (Jabon), was traversing the opposite lane going towards Naga City. The opposing parties
gave two different versions of the incident.
Facts:

 Gregorio Pomasin (Gregorio), Laarni’s father, was on board the jitney and seated
on the passenger’s side. He testified that while the jitney was passing through a
curve going downward, he saw a tractor-trailer coming from the opposite direction
and encroaching on the jitney’s lane. The jitney was hit by the tractor-trailer and it
was dragged further causing death and injuries to its passengers.
 On the other hand, Jabon recounted that while he was driving the tractor-trailer, he
noticed a jitney on the opposite lane falling off the shoulder of the road.
Thereafter, it began running in a zigzag manner and heading towards the direction of
the truck. To avoid collision, Jabon immediately swerved the tractor-trailer to the right
where it hit a tree and sacks of palay. Unfortunately, the jitney still hit the left fender
of the tractor-trailer before it was thrown a few meters away. The tractor-trailer was
likewise damaged.
 Multiple death and injuries to those in the jitney resulted.
 Gregorio was injured and brought to the Albay Provincial Hospital in Legaspi City.
 His daughter, Andrea Pomasin Pagunsan, sister Narcisa Pomasin Roncales and
Abraham Dionisio Perol died on the spot. His other daughter Laarni, the jitney
driver, and granddaughter Annie Jane Pomasin Pagunsan expired at the hospital.
His wife, Consorcia Pomasin, another granddaughter Dianne Pomasin Pagunsan,
Ricky Ponce, Vicente Pomasin, Gina Sesista, Reynaldo Sesista, Antonio Sesista and
Sonia Perol sustained injuries.
  Jabon and one of the passengers in the tractor-trailer were injured.
 Albert Tison, the owner of the truck, extended financial assistance to respondents
by giving them ₱1,000.00 each immediately after the accident and ₱200,000.00 to
Cynthia Pomasin, one of Gregorio’s daughters. Cynthia, in turn, executed an Affidavit
of Desistance.
 On 14 November 1994, respondents (Pomasin) filed a complaint for damages
against petitioners (Jabon) before the RTC of Antipolo.
 They alleged that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence,
imprudence and carelessness of petitioners.
 In their Answer, petitioners countered that it was Laarni’s negligence which
proximately caused the accident.
 Petitioners subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in view of the
Affidavit of Desistance executed by Cynthia.
 The motion was denied for lack of merit.
 RTC rendered judgment in favor of petitioners dismissing the complaint for damages
 The CA disagreed with the trial court and ruled that the reckless driving of Jabon
caused the vehicular collision and granted the appeal and set aside the trial court’s
decision.
 Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was, however, denied by the CA
 Hence, this petition for review.
Issue/s: Who is the negligent party or the party at fault?
Ruling:

 The negligence of Gregorio’s daughter, Laarni was the proximate cause of the
accident.
Applying Article 2176 of the Civil Code as indicated above.

 One reason why the trial court found credible the version of Jabon was
because his concentration as driver is more focused than that of a mere
passenger (Gregorio).
 In the case of a running or travelling vehicle, especially in highway travel which
doubtless involves faster speed than in ordinary roads, the driver is concentrated
on his driving continuously from moment to moment even in long trips. While
in the case of a mere passenger, he does not have to direct his attention to the
safe conduct of the travelling vehicle, as in fact he may converse with other
passengers and pay no attention to the driving or safe conduct of the travelling
vehicle, as he may even doze off to sleep if he wants to, rendering his opportunity for
observation on the precise cause of the accident or collision or immediately
preceding thereto not as much as that of the driver whose attention is continuously
focused on his driving.
 So that as between the respective versions of the plaintiffs thru their passenger and
that of the defendants thru their driver as to the cause or antecedent causes that led
to the vehicular collision in this case, the version of the driver of defendant should
ordinarily be more reliable than the version of a mere passenger of Plaintiffs’ vehicle,
consequently the capacity for observation of the latter of the latter on the matter
 testified to which is the precise point of inquiry --- the proximate cause of the
accident --- is more reasonably reliable.
 It is this conclusion, prodded by the inconsistency of Gregorio’s testimony, that gives
credence to the further testimony of Jabon that the herein respondent’s jitney,
"loaded with passengers with top-load" "was running in a zigzag manner.
 There was no showing that the tractor-trailer was speeding. There is a
preponderance of evidence that the tractor-trailer was in fact ascending.
Considering its size and the weight of the tractor-trailer, its speed could not be more
than that of a fully loaded jitney which was running downhill in a zigzagging manner.
Another conclusion of the CA which is not really applicable to the case filed for:

 The Court of Appeals concluded that Jabon was violating a traffic regulation at the
time of the collision.
Driving without a proper license is a violation of traffic regulation. Under Article 2185 of
the Civil Code, the legal presumption of negligence arises if at the time of the mishap, a
person was violating any traffic regulation. However, in Sanitary Steam Laundry, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, we held that a causal connection must exist between the injury
received and the violation of the traffic regulation. It must be proven that the violation
of the traffic regulation was the proximate or legal cause of the injury or that it
substantially contributed thereto. Negligence, consisting in whole or in part, of
violation of law, like any other negligence, is without legal consequence unless it is a
contributing cause of the injury.

 In the instant case, no causal connection was established between the tractor-trailer
driver’s restrictions on his license to the vehicular collision. Furthermore, Jabon was
able to sufficiently explain that the Land Transportation Office merely erred in not
including restriction code 8 in his license.
Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The challenged Decision and Resolution
of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Civil Case No. 94-3418 lodged before
the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 74, is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Note.—The test for determining whether a person is negligent in doing an act whereby injury or
damage results to the person or property of another is this: could a prudent man, in the position
of the person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a
reasonable consequence of the course actually pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty on the
actor to refrain from that course or to take precautions to guard against its mischievous results,
and the failure to do so constitutes negligence.