CASE TITLE AL DELA CRUZ, 

Petitioner G.R. NO. G.R. No. 190520

vs.
CAPT. RENATO OCTA VIANO and WILMA OCTA VIANO,
Respondents

PONENTE PERALTA, J.: DATE May 30, 2016

DOCTRINE See Ruling

FACTS Respondent Capt. Renato Octaviano, a military dentist, was riding a tricycle on the night of April 1, 1999 together with
his Mom, Wilma, and sister, Janet – The respondent was riding at the back of the of the driver while his two
companions were inside the sidecar. While traversing Naga Road towards the direction of CAA and BF Homes, the car
driven by the petitioner hit the back portion of the tricycle Renato was riding. The force and impact caused the tricycle
to turn around and land on the pavement near the gutter. This resulted to Renato being thrown out of the tricycle. He
felt severe pain in his lower extremities and wen momentarily unconscious. When he regained consciuousness. He
hear his sister calling for help and another man shouting to another: “Ikaw, dalhin mo yung sasakyan mo dito. Ikaw
ang nakabangga sa kanila. Daldhin mo sila sa ospital”. The petitioner initially brought them to a clinic but respondent
insisted to be brought to a hospital due to the severity of his injuries. They were brought to Perpetual Help Medical
Center where Renato’s leg was amputated that same night. He had to undergo rehabilitation for 9 months. However,
he suffered from bone infection shortly after being discharged and was operated on thrice. He was treated for 6
months. In 2000, he had a prostate leg at his own expense and spent a total of Php 623, 268.00. His side of the story
were corroborated by S/Sgt. Joselito Lacuesta (S/Sgt. Lacuesta)  and Antonio Fernandez.

Petitioner’s version of the story was that, He borrowed the car from Dr. Isagani Cirilo to drive and fetch his mom to
and from church. When he was along Naga Road, he noticed a tricycle from a distance of about 100 to 120 meters
away and was going the opposite direction. He also noticed an Elf van parked along the road on the opposite side. He
flashed his low beam and high beam light to signal the tricycle. The tricycle then slowed down and stopped a bit,
hence, he also slowed down. Suddenly, the tricycle picked up speed from its stop position and the two vehicles
collided. He then stopped his car a few meters away from the collision site and made a u-turn to confront the driver of
the tricycle. He also noticed that there were already about a dozen people around the site of the collision. He saw a
man sitting on the gutter and proceeded to move the car towards the former and asked him and his companions to
help board the injured man and the latter's co-passengers of the tricycle in the car he was driving. Thereafter, he drove
them to Perpetual Help Hospital where the man was treated for his injuries. His version was corroborated by his wife
who also testified that she offered to help the victims, but the latter refused and that she admitted that she did not
give any financial assistance for the hospital bills nor for medicines.

The RTC dismissed the respondent’s claims for damages against the petitioner and the owner of the vehicle. The CA
reversed the decision citing petitioner’s negligence as shown in the police report

1
ISSUE/S W/N the proximate cause of the incident was the fault or gross negligence of the tricycle driver.

RULING/S No. The petitioner’s negligence was the proximate cause. As correctly appreciated by the CA: first, there is
no question that the plaintiffs suffered damage due to the incident - Plaintiff Renato Octaviano's right leg
was crushed by the impact and Wilma suffered traumatic injuries/hematoma on different parts of her
body. These were duly proven by preponderant evidence; second, The petitioner was guilty of negligence
for driving under the influence of alcohol as corroborated by witnesses; and third, Had defendant Dela Cruz
exercised caution, his Honda Civic would not have collided with the tricycle and plaintiffs leg would not be
crushed necessitating its amputation. The cause of the injury or damage to the plaintiff’s leg is the negligent
act of defendant Dela Cruz.

As to the denial of petitioner that he was drunk at the time of the accident, whether or not he was in a state
of inebriation is inconsequential given the above findings.1âwphi1 His being sober does not and will not
erase the fact that he was still negligent and that the proximate cause of the collision was due to his said
negligence. Proximate cause is "that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new
cause, produces an event, and without which the event would not have occurred." As such, petitioner is
wrong when he claims that the proximate cause of the accident was the fault of the tricycle driver.

Neither is it correct to impute contributory negligence on the part of the tricycle driver and respondent
Renato when the latter had violated a municipal ordinance that limits the number of passengers for each
tricycle for hire to three persons including the driver. In this case, the causal link between the alleged
negligence of the tricycle driver and respondent Renato was not established. This court has appreciated
that negligence per se,  arising from the mere violation of a traffic statute, need not be sufficient in itself in
establishing liability for damages.