Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-8937 November 29, 1957
OLEGARIO RITO S!, plaintif-appellee,
vs.
MALATE TA"I CA # GARAGE, INC., defendant-appelant;
MALATE TA"ICA # GARAGE, INC., third-part plaintif-appellant,
vs.
$ESUS %E&UITO ! %UP!, third-part defendant-appellee.
Paredes, Gaw and Acevedo for appellee.
Diaz and Baizas for appellant.
EN%ENCIA, J.:
!n "une #$, %&'#, at (e)e Boulevard in front of the *electa Restaurant, !le+ario
Brito * en+a+ed a ta,icab bearin+ plate No. -a,i-%%./, o)ned and operated b
Malate -a,icab and 0ara+e, 1nc. and driven b Catalino Er2ino, to ta3e hi2 to his
place of business at (encia4s Restaurant on the Escolta )here he )as the +eneral
2ana+er. 5pon reachin+ the Ri6al Monu2ent he told the driver to turn to the ri+ht,
but the latter did not heed hi2 and instead countered that the better pass alon+
7ati+ba3 (rive. At the intersection of (e)e Bolevard and 7ati+ba3 (rive, the ta,i
collided )ith an ar2 )a+on )ith plate No. -P1-$&' driven b *+t. "esus (e 8uito, as
a result of )hich !le+ario Brito * )as 9arred, 9a22ed and 9olted. :e )as ta3en to
the *anta 1sabel :ospital suferin+ fro2 bruises and contusions as )ell as fractured
ri+ht le+. -hereafter he )as transferred to the 0on6ales !rthopedic Clinic and )as
accordin+l operated on. :e spent so2e P#,#$$.;' for 2edical bills and
hospitali6ation.
!n *epte2ber ./, %&'#, * <led action a+ainst the Malate -a,icab = 0ara+e, 1nc.,
based upon a contract of carria+e, to recover the su2s of P>,#// as actual or
co2pensator da2a+es, P#/,/// as 2oral da2a+es, P%',/// as no2inal and
e,e2plar da2a+es, and P.,/// a attorne4s fees. !n !ctober #, %&'#, a cop of
the co2plaint )as served on and received b the defendant, but the latter <led its
ans)er onl on !ctober #/, %&'#, )herein it alle+ed that the collision sub9ect of the
co2plaint )as not due to the ne+li+ence of its driver but to that of *+t. "esus
(e8uito, the driver of the ar2 )a+on; and, b )a of counterclai2, sou+ht to
recover the su2 of P%,/// as da2a+es caused b the alle+ed 2alicious and
frivolous action <led a+ainst it.
-he record reveals that upon plaintif4s 2otion <led on !ctober #., %&'#, the lo)er
court ordered on !ctober #', %&'# that the ans)er )hich )as <led b defendant out
of ti2e be stric3en out, and declared the Malate -a,icab = 0ara+e, 1nc. in default.
-hereafter, on !ctober ./, %&'#, plaintif presented his evidence, and on Nove2ber
#/, %&'# 9ud+2ent )as rendered a)ardin+ plaintif the su2 of P%;./// as actual,
co2pensator, 2oral, no2inal and e,e2plar da2a+es includin+ attorne4s fees
and costs, )ith interest at the le+al rate fro2 the <lin+ of the action. (efendant then
<led a 2otion on (ece2ber %>, %&'#, for relief fro2 the order of default and for ne)
trial, )hich )as +ranted. :ence, plaintif <led his repl to defendant4s ans)er and
counterelai2, and b leave of court, the latter <led on ?ebruar #;, %&'. a third-
part co2plaint a+ainst *+t. "esus (e8uito alle+in+ that the cause of the collision
bet)een the ta,icab and the ar2 )a+on )as the ne+li+ence of the ar2 ser+eant,
and prain+ that )hatever a2ount the court 2a assess a+ainst it in the action <led
b plaintif, be paid to said third-part plaintif, plus an additional a2ount of P%,///
representin+ attorne4s fees. 1t appears, ho)ever, that the su22ons and cop of the
third-part co2plaint )ere never served upon third-part defendant (e8uito in vie)
of his continued assi+n2ent fro2 place to place in connection )ith his ar2 duties,
and for this reason the 2ain case )as set for trial on Ma %/, %&'., obviousl for the
sole purpose of disposin+ of the issue arisin+ fro2 plaintifs co2plaint. !n the da of
the trial, defendant failed to appear, )hereupon plaintif presented his evidence,
and 9ud+2ent )as rendered a+ainst the defendant in the total su2 of P;,#//
representin+ actual, co2pensator and 2oral da2a+es, as )ell as attorne4s fees,
)ith interest at the le+al rate fro2 the <lin+ of the action, plus costs of suit. A+a nst
said 9ud+2ent defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals and assi+ned in its brief
t)o errors of the lo)er court, na2el@
%. -he trial court erred in not <ndin+ that the third-part co2plaint involves
a pre9udicial 8uestion, and therefore, the 2ain co2plaint cannot be decided
until the third-part co2plaint is decided.
#. -he trial court erred in not decidin+ or 2a3in+ an e,press <ndin+ as to
)hether the defendant appellant Malate -a,icab = 0ara+e, 1nc. )as
responsible for the collision, and hence, civill responsible to the plaintif-
appellee.
?indin+ the 8uoted assi+n2ent of errors as involvin+ a purel 8uestion of la), the
Court of Appeals, b virtue of the provisions of section %>, para+raph $ of the
9udiciar Act of %&;A, as a2ended, certi<ed the case to this Court for ad9udication, in
its Resolution of ?ebruar >, %&''.
Be <nd no 2erit in the <rst assi+n2ent of error that the third-part co2plaint is a
pre-9udicial 8uestion. As enunciated b this Court in Berbari vs. Concepcion, ;/ Phil.
A.>, CPre-9udicial 8uestion in understood in la) to be that )hich precedes the
cri2inal action, or that )hich re8uires a decision before <nal 9ud+2ent is rendered in
the principal action )ith )hich said 8uestion is closel connected. Not all previous
8uestions are pre-9udicial 8uestions are necessaril previousC, althou+h all pre-
9udicial 8uestions are necessaril previous.C 1n the present case, the third-part
co2plaint is not a pre-9udicial 8uestion, as the issue in the 2ain action is not entirel
dependent upon those in the third-part co2plaint; on the contrar, it is the third-
part co2plaint that is dependent upon the 2ain case at least in the a2ount of
da2a+es )hich defendant appellant see3s to be rei2bursed in its third-part
co2plaint. ?urther2ore, the co2plaint is based on a contractual obli+ation of
transportation of passen+er )hich defendant-appellant failed to carr out, and the
action is entirel diferent and independent fro2 that in the third-part co2plaint
)hich is based an alle+ed tortious act co22itted b the third-part defendant *+t.
(e8uito. -he 2ain case, therefore, is entirel severable and 2a be liti+ated
independentl. Moreover, )hatever the outco2e of the third-part co2plaint 2i+ht
be )ould not in an )a afect or alter the contractual liabilit of the appellant to
plaintif. 1f the collision )as due to the ne+li+ence of the third-part defendant, as
alle+ed, then defendant appellant 2a <le a separate civil action for da2a+es based
on tort ex-delicto or upon quasi-delict, as the case 2a be.
Co2in+ to the second assi+n2ent of error that the lo)er court erred in not 2a3in+
an e,press <ndin+s as to )hether defendant appellant )as responsible for the
collision, )e <nd the sa2e to be un9usti<ed. -he pertinent, provisions of the ne)
Civil Code under the headin+ Co22on Carriers, are the follo)in+@
AR-. %>... Co22on carriers, fro2 the nature of their business and for
reason of public polic, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the
vi+ilance over the +oods and for te safety of te passengers transported
by te!, according to all te circu!stances of eac case.
*uch e,traordinar dili+ence in the vi+ilance over the +oods is further
e,pressed in articles %>.;, %>.', and %>;', Nos. ', $, and >, )hile
the extraordinary diligence for te safety of te passengers is furter set
fort in articles %>'' and %>'$.
AR-. %>''. A co22on carrier is bound to carr the passen+ers to safet as
far as hu2an care and foresi+ht can provide, using te ut!ost diligence of
very cautious persons, wit a due regard for all te circu!stances.
AR-. %>'$. 1n case of death of or in"uries to passengers, co!!on carriers
are presu!ed to ave been at fault or to ave acted ne+li+entl, unless
the prove that the observed e,traordinar diligence as prescribed in
articles %>.. and %>''. DE2phasis supplied.E
Evidentl, under these provisions of la), the court need not 2a3e an e,press <ndin+
of fault or ne+li+ence on the part of the defendant appellant in order to hold it
responsible to pa the da2a+es sou+ht for b the plaintif, for the action initiated
therefor is based on a contract of carria+e and not on tort. Bhen plaintif rode on
defendant-appellant4s ta,icab, the latter assu2ed the e,press obli+ation to
transport hi2 to his destination safel, and to observe e,traordinar dili+ence )ith a
due re+ard for all the circu2stances, and an in9ur that 2i+ht be sufered b the
passen+er is ri+ht a)a attributable to the fault or ne+li+ence of the carrier DArticle
%>'$, supraE. -his is an e,ception to the +eneral rule that ne+li+ence 2ust be
proved, and it )as therefore incu2bent upon the carrier to prove that it has
e,ercised e,traordinar dili+ence as prescribed in Articles %>.. and %>'' of the ne)
Civil Code. 1t is note)orth, ho)ever, that at the hearin+ in the lo)er court
defendant-appellant failed to appear and has not presented an evidence at all to
overco2e and over)hel2 the presu2ption of ne+li+ence i2posed upon it b la);
hence, there )as no need for the lo)er court to 2a3e an e,press <ndin+ thereon in
vie) of the provisions of the afore8uoted Article %>'$ of the ne) Civil Code.
Bherefore, the decision of the lo)er court is hereb aFr2ed )ith cost a+ainst the
appellant.
Paras, #. $., Bengzon, %onte!ayor, Bautista Angelo, &abrador, and #oncepcion, $$.,
concur,.
RE!ES, $. . L., J. concurrin+@
1 concur for the additional reason that the concurrent ne+li+ence of a third person
)ill not e,e2pt the appellant fro2 responsibilit; in other )ords, if the driver of the
ta,icab )as ne+li+ent and thereb caused the collision, the fact that another driver4s
ne+li+ence also contributed thereto )ill not e,e2pt the ta,icab co2pan. :ence, the
ne+li+ence of the other driver is not a pre9udicial 8uestion to the present action.
Padilla, $., concur.