This is the digest of the Neypes v. Court of Appeals where the Neypes Rule originated. It is discussed for Civil Procedure.Full description
Palmares v CA DigestFull description
Perez v. CA digestFull description
agency caseFull description
for Succession classFull description
For Admin LawFull description
case digest
Full description
digest, corporation law
Full description
crim pro
digest creditFull description
:)
Torts case digest - Ballatan v. CA
l
Tibajia v. CA Case Digest
digestFull description
Oblicon Case.
123
PLDT v CA GR No. 57079 September 29, 1989
Facts: Spouses Esteban were riding their jeep when they ran over an earth mound and fell in an open trench on the road resulting to slight injuries to the husband and serious injuries to the wife. The windshield of the jeep was also shattered due to the accident. Spouses Esteban accused PLDT of negligence because of lack of warning signs placed near the manhole dug resulting on the earth mound on the road causing injuries to the wife. PLDT contends the injuries were the result of the negligence of the independent contractor the company hired (Barte) and should be the one held liable and not the company. RTC ruled in favour of the spouses while the CA under Justice Agrava as ponente reversed the decision of the RTC.
Issue: W/N PLDT can be held liable for the injuries caused to spouses Esteban
Held: PLDT and Barte contends that the independent contractor placed signs on the road and that it was the fault of Mr. Esteban because he did not diligently drive the jeepney. Mr. Esteban had quickly swerved from the outer lane thereby hitting the earth mound. SC finds no error in the findings of the respondent court in its original decision that the accident which befell private respondents was due to the lack of diligence of respondent Antonio Esteban and was not imputable to negligent omission on the part of petitioner PLDT. The findings clearly show that the negligence of respondent Antonio Esteban was not only contributory to his injuries and those of his wife but goes to the very cause of the occurrence of the accident, as one of its determining factors, and thereby precludes their right to recover damages. The presence of warning signs could not have completely prevented the accident; the only purpose of said signs was to inform and warn the public of the presence of excavations on the site. The private respondents already knew of the presence of said excavations. It was not the lack of knowledge of these excavations which caused the jeep of respondents to fall into the excavation but the unexplained sudden swerving of the jeep from the inside lane towards the accident mound.
