SUBJECT Quasi-delict (Art.
2176 of the Civil Code)1
CASE NO/DATE G.R. No. 77679; September 30, 1987
CASE TITLE Vicente Vergara v CA and Amadeo Azarcon
FACTS
1. An action for damages based on quasi-delicti (Article 2176 of the Civil Code) was filed by private respondent
against petitioner.
2. The action arose from a vehicular accident that occurred on August 5, 1979 in Nueva Ecija. Martin Belmote
drove a cargo truck of petitioner Vergara and it rammed “head-on” the store-residence of respondent Azarcon
causing damages thereto amounting to P53,024.22.
3. In his Answer, petitioner alleged that his driver operated the truck very diligently. That the steering wheel
refused and as a result of a blown-out tire, it hit the store-residence of the plaintiff. That the accident was an
act of God.
4. Petitioner also filed a 3 rd-party complaint against Travellers Insurance and Surety Corporation, alleging that the
truck was insured. Petitioner Vergara prayed that the latter be ordered to pay him whatever amount he may
be ordered by the court to pay the respondent.
5. Trial court rendered judgment in favour of the respondent.
6. CA affirmed the decision in toto and ordered petitioner to pay jointly and severally with Travellers Insurance
and Surety Corporation the following: (a) P53,024.22 as actual damages; (b) P10,000.00 as moral damages; (c)
P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (d) sum of P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees and the costs.
On the 3rd party complaint, the insurance company was ordered to pay petitioner: (a) P50,000.00 for third
party liability under its comprehensive accident insurance policy and (b) P3,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
7. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE1 Whether or not the respondent court erred in finding him guilty of fault or negligence
RULING NO, the respondent court did not err. It was established by competent evidence that the
requisites of quasi-delict are present in this case. These requisites are: (1) damages to the
plaintiff; (2) negligence, by act or omission, of which defendant, or some person for whose acts
he must respond, was guilty; and (3) the connection of cause and effect between such negligence
and the damages.
It is undisputed that private respondent suffered damages as a result of an act or omission of
petitioner. The fact of occurrence of the “vehicular accident” was sufficiently established by the
police report and the testimony of Patrolman Masiclat. According to the police report, "the cargo
truck was travelling on the right side of the road going to Manila and then it crossed to the center
line and went to the left side of the highway; it then bumped a tricycle; and then another bicycle;
and then said cargo truck rammed the store warehouse of the plaintiff."
According to the driver of the cargo truck, he applied the brakes but the latter did not work due to
mechanical defect. Contrary to the claim of the petitioner, a mishap caused by defective brakes
cannot be consideration as fortuitous in character. Certainly, the defects were curable and the
accident preventable.
Furthermore, the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence to overcome the disputable
presumption of negligence on his part in the selection and supervision of his driver.
Based on the foregoing finding by the respondent Court that there was negligence on the part of
the petitioner, the petitioner's contention that the respondent court erred in awarding private
respondent actual, moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees and costs, is
untenable.
1
Quasi delict requisites are: (1) damages to the plaintiff; (2) negligence, by act or omission, of which defendant, or some person
for whose acts he must respond, was guilty; and (3) the connection of cause and effect between such negligence and the damages.
