3

LARRY ESTACION vs NOE BERNARDO

483 SCRA 222 (February 27, 2006)

FACTS:
On October 16, 1982 in the afternoon, respondent Noe Bernardo was going home to
Dumaguete from Cebu. He boarded a Ford Fiera jeepney driven by Quinquillera and owned
by Bandoquillo. He was seated on the extension seat at the center of the Fiera. From San
Jose, an old woman wanted to ride so Noe offered his seat and hung/stood on the left rear
carrier of the vehicle. The Fiera slowed down and stopped to pick up more passengers.

Suddenly, an Isuzu cargo truck owned by the petitioner Larry Estacion and driven by
Gerosano, which was travelling in the same direction, hit the rear portion of the jeepney.
The Fiera crushed Bernardos legs and feet, and he was brought to Silliman University
Medical Center where his lower left leg was amputated. Police report showed that there
were 10 more who were injured by the accident.

On February 18, 1993, Bernardo, and his guardian ad litem Arlie Bernardo, filed with
the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete a complaint for damages arising from quasi-delict
against petitioner as owner of the truck and his driver. RTC ruled that Gerosano was
negligent and it was the direct and proximate cause of the incident. It also held petitioner
liable as employer. CA affirmed in toto the RTC.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is liable and whether or not Bernardo was guilty of
contributory negligence

HELD:
YES.

RATIO:
From the way the truck reacted to the application of the brakes, it can be shown that
Gerosano was driving at a fast speed because the brakes skidded a lengthy 48 ft. as shown
in the sketch of the police. There was also only one tire mark which meant that the brakes
of the truck were not aligned properly, otherwise, there would have been 2 tire marks. It is
the negligent act of the petitioners driver of driving the cargo truck at a fast speed coupled
with faulty brakes which was the proximate cause of the respondent Bernardos injury. As
employer of Gerosano, petitioner is primarily and solitarily liable for the quasi-delict
committed by the former. He is presumed to be negligent in the selection of his employee
which petitioner failed to overcome. He failed to show that he examined driver Gerosano as
to his qualifications, experience and records.

Bernardo is guilty of contributory negligence by standing at the rear portion of the

jeep. Contributory Negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a
legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is
required to conform for his own protection. Bernardos act of standing on the left rear
portion showed his lack of ordinary care and foresight that such act could cause him harm
or put his life in danger. To hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it must be
shown that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in disregard of warning or
signs of an impending danger to health and body. Quinquillera (jeepney driver) was also
negligent because there was overloading which is in violation of traffic rules and regulations.
He also allowed Bernardo to stand on the left rear of his jeep. There is also a presumption of
negligence on the part of the owner of the jeep, Bandoquillo, to which she did not rebut.