Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 67 views

    AÑONUEVO V CA DIGESTED

    Uploaded by

    ESSU Societas Discipulorum Legis
    This case involves a collision between a car driven by Añonuevo and a bicycle ridden by Villagracia at an intersection in Mandaluyong. Villagracia sued for damages. The RTC found both defendants liable. On appeal, Añonuevo argued that Article 2185 of the Civil Code on negligence per se should apply to Villagracia since his bicycle did not have safety equipment required by ordinance. The Court ruled that Article 2185 does not apply to non-motorized vehicles. It found that while Villagracia's ordinance violation established some negligence, Añonuevo's reckless speeding in making the left turn was the proximate cause of the accident, not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    AÑONUEVO V CA DIGESTED

    Uploaded by

    ESSU Societas Discipulorum Legis
    67 views3 pages
    This case involves a collision between a car driven by Añonuevo and a bicycle ridden by Villagracia at an intersection in Mandaluyong. Villagracia sued for damages. The RTC found both defendants liable. On appeal, Añonuevo argued that Article 2185 of the Civil Code on negligence per se should apply to Villagracia since his bicycle did not have safety equipment required by ordinance. The Court ruled that Article 2185 does not apply to non-motorized vehicles. It found that while Villagracia's ordinance violation established some negligence, Añonuevo's reckless speeding in making the left turn was the proximate cause of the accident, not

    Original Title

    AÑONUEVO v CA DIGESTED

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a collision between a car driven by Añonuevo and a bicycle ridden by Villagracia at an intersection in Mandaluyong. Villagracia sued for damages. The RTC found both defendants liable. On appeal, Añonuevo argued that Article 2185 of the Civil Code on negligence per se should apply to Villagracia since his bicycle did not have safety equipment required by ordinance. The Court ruled that Article 2185 does not apply to non-motorized vehicles. It found that while Villagracia's ordinance violation established some negligence, Añonuevo's reckless speeding in making the left turn was the proximate cause of the accident, not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    67 views3 pages

    AÑONUEVO V CA DIGESTED

    Uploaded by

    ESSU Societas Discipulorum Legis
    This case involves a collision between a car driven by Añonuevo and a bicycle ridden by Villagracia at an intersection in Mandaluyong. Villagracia sued for damages. The RTC found both defendants liable. On appeal, Añonuevo argued that Article 2185 of the Civil Code on negligence per se should apply to Villagracia since his bicycle did not have safety equipment required by ordinance. The Court ruled that Article 2185 does not apply to non-motorized vehicles. It found that while Villagracia's ordinance violation established some negligence, Añonuevo's reckless speeding in making the left turn was the proximate cause of the accident, not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    JONAS AÑONUEVO v. CA, GR No.

    130003, 2004-10-20

    Facts:

    the accident in question occurred on 8 February 1989, at around nine in the evening,
    at the intersection of Boni Avenue and Barangka Drive in Mandaluyong (now a city).
    Villagracia was traveling along Boni Avenue on his... bicycle, while Añonuevo,
    traversing the opposite lane was driving his Lancer car with plate number PJJ 359.
    The car was owned by Procter and Gamble Inc., the employer of Añonuevo's brother,
    Jonathan. Añonuevo was in the course of making a left turn towards Libertad Street
    when... the collision occurred. Villagracia sustained serious injuries as a result,
    which necessitated his hospitalization several times in 1989, and forced him to
    undergo four (4) operations.

    Villagracia instituted an action for damages against Procter and Gamble Phils., Inc.
    and Añonuevo before the RTC.

    Trial on the civil action ensued, and in a Decision dated 9 March 1990, the RTC
    rendered judgment against Procter and Gamble and Añonuevo, ordering them to pay
    Villagracia the amounts... of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150, 000.00). for
    actual damages, Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for moral damages, and Twenty
    Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) for attorney's fees, as well as legal costs.

    the Court of Appeals Fourth Division affirmed the RTC Decision in toto

    Issues:

    whether Article 2185 of the New Civil Code, which presumes the driver of a motor
    vehicle negligent if he was violating a traffic... regulation at the time of the mishap,
    should apply by analogy to non-motorized vehicles.

    Should the doctrine of negligence per se apply to Villagracia, resulting from his
    violation of an ordinance? It cannot be denied that the statutory purpose for requiring
    bicycles to be equipped with headlights or horns is to promote road safety and to
    minimize the occurrence of... road accidents involving bicycles.

    Ruling:

    Añonuevo points out that Villagracia's bicycle had no safety gadgets such as a horn
    or bell, or headlights, as invoked by a 1948 municipal ordinance.

    Nor was it duly registered... with the Office of the Municipal Treasurer, as required by
    the same ordinance.

    Villagracia does not dispute these allegations, which he admitted during the... trial,
    but directs our attention instead to the findings of Añonuevo's own negligence.

    Villagracia also contends that, assuming there was contributory negligence on his
    part, such would not exonerate Añonuevo from payment of damages.

    What Añonuevo seeks is for the Court to amend the explicit command of the
    legislature, as embodied in Article 2185, a task beyond the pale of judicial power.
    The Court interprets, and not creates, the law. However, since the Court is being
    asked to consider the matter, it might... as well examine whether Article 2185 could
    be interpreted to include non-motorized vehicles.

    If Añonuevo seriously contends that... the application of Article 2185 be expanded


    due to the greater interaction today of all types of vehicles, such argument
    contradicts historical experience.

    The more pertinent basis for the segregate... classification is the difference in type of
    these vehicles.

    A motorized vehicle, unimpeded by... the limitations in physical exertion. is capable


    of greater speeds and acceleration than non-motorized vehicles.

    At the same time, motorized vehicles are more capable in inflicting greater injury or
    damage in the event of an accident or collision.

    Art. 2185 was not formulated to compel or ensure obeisance by all to traffic rules and
    regulations.

    While the legal argument as formulated by Añonuevo is erroneous, his core


    contention that Villagracia was negligent for... failure to comply with traffic
    regulations warrants serious consideration, especially since the imputed negligent
    acts were admitted by Villagracia himself.

    The generally accepted view is that the violation of a statutory duty constitutes
    negligence, negligence as a matter of law, or negligence per se.

    At face value, Villagracia's mishap was precisely the danger sought to be guarded
    against by the ordinance he violated. Añonuevo argues that Villagracia's violation
    should bar the latter's recovery of damages, and a simplistic interpretation of...
    negligence per se might vindicate such an argument.

    There is the fact which we consider as proven, that Añonuevo was speeding as he
    made the left turn, and such negligent act was the proximate cause of the accident.
    This reckless behavior would have imperiled anyone unlucky enough within the...
    path of Añonuevo's car as it turned into the intersection, whether they are fellow
    motorists, pedestrians, or cyclists.

    Even assuming that Añonuevo had failed to see Villagracia because the bicycle was
    not equipped with headlights, such lapse on the cyclist's part would not have
    acquitted the driver of his duty... to slow down as he proceeded to make the left turn.

    The rule on negligence per se must admit qualifications that may arise from the
    logical consequences of the facts leading to the mishap. The doctrine (and Article
    2185, for that matter) is undeniably useful as a judicial guide in adjudging liability, for
    it seeks to... impute culpability arising from the failure of the actor to perform up to a
    standard established by a legal fiat. But the doctrine should not be rendered
    inflexible so as to deny relief when in fact there is no causal relation between the
    statutory violation and the injury... sustained. Presumptions in law, while convenient,
    are not intractable so as to forbid rebuttal rooted in fact. After all, tort law is
    remunerative in spirit, aiming to provide compensation for the harm suffered by those
    whose interests have been invaded owing to the conduct of... others.
    Principles:

    Thus, we cannot sustain the contention that Art. 2185 should apply to non-motorized
    vehicles, even if by analogy. There is factual and legal basis that necessitates the
    distinction under Art. 2185

    The mere fact of violation of a statute is not sufficient basis for an inference that
    such violation was the proximate cause of the injury complained. However, if the
    very injury has happened which was intended to be prevented by the statute, it has
    been held that... violation of the statute will be deemed to be the proximate cause of
    the injury

    Sanitary Steam[42] is controlling in this case. The bare fact that Villagracia was
    violating a municipal ordinance at the time of the accident may have sufficiently
    established some degree of negligence on his part, but such negligence is without...
    legal consequence unless it is shown that it was a contributing cause of the injury.

    The failure of the bicycle owner to comply with accepted safety practices, whether
    or not imposed by ordinance or statute, is not sufficient to negate or mitigate
    recovery unless a causal connection is established between such failure... and the
    injury sustained. The principle likewise finds affirmation in Sanitary Steam, wherein
    we declared that the violation of a traffic statute must be shown as the proximate
    cause of the injury, or that it substantially contributed thereto.

    You might also like