G.R. No. 130003
October 20, 2004
Jonas Añonuevo, petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals an Jero!e "#lla$rac#a, "#lla$rac#a, respondents. respondents. %&NGA, J .' .'
(acts' Villagracia was traveling along Boni Ave. on his bicycle, while Añonuevo,traversing the opposite lane was driving a Lancer car owned by Procter and Gamble Inc., the employer o Añonuevo!s brother. Añonuevo was in the course o ma"ing a letturn towards Libertad #treet when the collision occurred. Villagracia sustained serious in$uries and had to undergo our operations. Villagracia instituted an action or damages against P%G Phils., Inc. and Añonuevo beore the &'(. )e had also iled a criminal complaint against Añonuevobeore the *etropolitan 'rial (ourt o *andaluyong, but the latter was subse+uentlyac+uitted o the criminal charge. Añ on u ev o cl ai ms th a t Vi ll a gr a ci a vi o la t ed tr a i c re g u la ti o ns w he n he a i l ed to re gi s te r hi s bi c yc le o r install saety gadgets. )e posits that Article -/ o the (ivil (ode applies by analogy. Article -/. 0nless there is proo to the contrary, it is presumed that a persondriving a motor vehicle has been negligent i at the time o the mishap he was violating any traic regulation. &ssues' A. 1 he th e r or no t Ar t. - / o th e 2e w (i v i l ( od e sh ou l d ap p ly to no n3 mo to r i4 ed v eh ic l es , ma "i ng Villagracia presumptively negligent. B. 1hether or not not Villagracia Villagracia was negligent negligent or ailure to comply with traic traic regulations. regulations. (. 1hether or or not Villagracia Villagracia is guilty o contributory contributory negligence Hel' 2o Hel' 2o to all. A. A pp l i ca ti o n o Ar ti cl e - / Aonuevo claims that Villagracia violated traic regulations when he ailed to register his bicycle or install saety gadgets thereon. )e posits that Article -/ o the 2ew (ivil (ode applies by analogy. 'he provision reads5 Article 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap he was violating any traffic regulation.
Aonuevo hypothesi4es that Article -/ should apply by analogy to all types o vehicles 678. )e points out that modern3day travel is more comple9 now than when the (ode was enacted, the number and types o vehicles now in use ar more numerous than as o then. )e even suggests that at the time o the enactment o the (ode, the legislators must have seen that only motor vehicles were o such public concern that they had to be speciically mentioned, menti oned, yet today today,, the inter interactio action n o vehicles o all types and nature has inesc inescapably apably become matter o public concern so as to e9pand the application o the law to be more responsive to the times. 6:8 At the time Article Article -/ was ormulated, there e9isted a whole array o non3motori4ed vehicles ranging rom human3 powered contraption ons s on wheels such as bicy cyc cles, scooters, and anim ima al3d 3drraw awn n carts such as calesas and carromata . 'hese modes o transport were even more prevalent on the roads o the -;:
been compiled, much less conirmed by persons over si9ty. Aonuevos characteri4ation o a vibrant intra3road dynamic between motori4ed and non3motori4ed vehicles is more apropos to the past than to the present. 'here is pertinent basis or segregating between motori4ed and non3motori4ed vehicles. A motori4ed vehicle, unimpeded by the limitations in physical e9ertion. Is capable o greater speeds and acceleration than non3motori4ed vehicles. At the sam etime, motori4ed vehicles are more capable in inlicting greater in$ury or damage in the event o an accident or collision. 'his is due to a combination o actors peculiar to themotor vehicle, such as the greater speed, its relative greater bul" o mass, and greater combustibility due to the use o uel. B. 2egligience on the part o Villagracia 'he e 9iste nce o neg lige nce i n a g iven case is no t det ermin ed b y the perso nal $udgment o the actor in a given situation, but rather, it is the law which determines what wou ld be re c" le ss or ne gl ig en t. Año nu ev o asserts that Villagracia was negligent as the latter had transgressed traic regulations. )owever, Añ on uev o wa s sp ee di ng as he ma de th e le t tu rn , and by his own admission, he had seen Villagracia at a good distance o ten =-<> meters. )ad he been decelerating, as he should, as he made the turn, Aonuevo would have had ample opportunity to avoid hitting Villagracia, such negligent act was the pro9imate cause o the accident. ?ven assuming that Añonuevo had ailed to see Villagracia because the bicycle was not e+uipped with headlights, such lapse on the cyclist!s part would not have ac+uitted the driver o his duty to slow down as he proceeded to ma"e the let turn. (. (ontributory 2egligience 'o hold a person as having contributed to his in$uries, it must be shown that he perormed an act that brought about his in$uries in disregard o warnings or signs o an impending danger to health and body. 6@<8 'o prove contributory negligence, it is still necessary to establish a causal lin", although not pro9imate, between the negligence o the party and the succeeding in$ury. In a legal sense, negligence is contributory only when it contributes pro9imately to the in$ury, and not simply a condition or its occurrence. 6@-8 As between Añonuevo and Villagracia, the lower courts ad$udged Añonuevo assol el y re spon sib le o r th e accident. 'he petition does not demonstrate why this inding should be reversed. It is hard to imagine that the same result would not have occurred even i Villagracia!s bicycle had been e+uipped with saety e+uipment.
