G.R. No. 44112 - DECEMBER 1935 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 44112December 21, 1935 Elisa De La Cruz vs. Hijos de I. de La Rama & Co.,, et al. G.R. No. 43973December 21, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Ponciano Carballo G.R. No. 43719December 21, 1935 Aurelio Cecilio vs. Jacinto Tomacruz G.R. No. 43290December 21, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Ambrosio Linsañgan G.R. No. 42779December 21, 1935 Asiatic Petroleum Co., (P.I.), Ltd. vs. Buenaventura M. Veloso G.R. No. 42626December 21, 1935 Eduardo Matute, et al. vs. Antonio A. Matute G.R. No. 42510December 21, 1935 In Re: Mariano Lopez Natalia Arevalo vs. Carmen Adriano G.R. No. 42454December 21, 1935 In Re: Intestate Estate of Mariano G. Veloso George Castro vs. Consuelo Carratala vda. de Veloso G.R. No. 42435December 21, 1935 In Re: Manuela Perez Flora Castillo vs. Melecio Bolaños, et al. G.R. No. 41731December 21, 1935 Margarita Roxas y Ayala vda. de Soriano, et al. vs. Juan Posadas, Jr. G.R. No. 43475December 20, 1935 Gregorio Yarcia vs. Philippine Educational Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. 43314December 19, 1935 A. I. Velilla, et al. vs. Juan Posadas, Jr. G.R. No. 43043December 19, 1935 Felix V. Katipunan vs. Julio A. Antiporda G.R. No. 42128 and 42129December 19, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Vicente Co Arquiza G.R. No. 43556December 18, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Honorato R. Espina G.R. No. 41768December 17, 1935 Vda. E. Hijos de Pio Barretto y Cia vs. Albo & Sevilla, Inc., et al. G.R. No. 41200December 17, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Mariano Cu Unjieng, et al. G.R. No. 44281December 13, 1935 Ah Young vs. Vicente Aldanese, et al. G.R. No. 42574December 12, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Ngan Te G.R. No. 44627December 11, 1935 Felipe Salcedo vs. Francisco Hernandez G.R. No. 42933December 10, 1935 Paz Nabong vs. Eligio Alfonso G.R. No. 44476December 9, 1935 Marcelina Casas vda. de Riosa vs. Juan G. Lesaca, et al. G.R. No. 43913December 9, 1935 Manila Electric Company vs. Pasay Transportation Company G.R. No. 42557December 7, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo Reodica, et al. G.R. No. 43761December 6, 1935 Domingo Cacho vs. Jose Abad G.R. No. 43137December 5, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Jose Tayaba G.R. No. 43178December 4, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Swame Claudett Scott G.R. No. 44750December 3, 1935 Serafin Gamboa vs. Jose Lopez Vito, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Elisa De La Cruz vs. Hijos de I. de La Rama & Co.,, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ponciano Carballo Aurelio Cecilio vs. Jacinto Tomacruz People of the Philippines vs. Ambrosio Linsañgan Asiatic Petroleum Co., (P.I.), Ltd. vs. Buenaventura M. Veloso Eduardo Matute, et al. vs. Antonio A. Matute In Re: Mariano Lopez Natalia Arevalo vs. Carmen Adriano In Re: Intestate Estate of Mariano G. Veloso George Castro vs. Consuelo Carratala vda. de Veloso In Re: Manuela Perez Flora Castillo vs. Melecio Bolaños, et al. Margarita Roxas y Ayala vda. de Soriano, et al. vs. Juan Posadas, Jr. Gregorio Yarcia vs. Philippine Educational Co., Inc., et al. A. I. Velilla, et al. vs. Juan Posadas, Jr. Felix V. Katipunan vs. Julio A. Antiporda People of the Philippines vs. Vicente Co Arquiza People of the Philippines vs. Honorato R. Espina Vda. E. Hijos de Pio Barretto y Cia vs. Albo & Sevilla, Inc., et al. People of the Philippines vs. Mariano Cu Unjieng, et al. Ah Young vs. Vicente Aldanese, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ngan Te Felipe Salcedo vs. Francisco Hernandez Paz Nabong vs. Eligio Alfonso Marcelina Casas vda. de Riosa vs. Juan G. Lesaca, et al. Manila Electric Company vs. Pasay Transportation Company People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo Reodica, et al. Domingo Cacho vs. Jose Abad People of the Philippines vs. Jose Tayaba People of the Philippines vs. Swame Claudett Scott Serafin Gamboa vs. Jose Lopez Vito, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 44112 December 21, 1935
ELISA DE LA CRUZ,plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA & CO.,defendant-appellee.
Bernabe Butalid for appellant.
Hervas and Concepcion for appellee.
IMPERIAL,J.:
The plaintiff, widow of Crecenciano Moralda, brought this action against the defendant to obtain compensation for the death of her husband, under Act. No 3428, as amended by Act No. 3812. She appealed from the decision of the court dismissing her action, without costs.
Crecenciano Moralda was a chauffeur of the defendant earning approximately P40 a month, at the rate of P0.25 for every trip made by him with the truck he was driving, loaded with sugar. He was married to the plaintiff with whom he had two children. All of them depended on Moralda's salary. In the afternoon of January 21, 1933, Moralda, as usual, drove the Chevrolet truck which the defendant had just bought from the Pacific Commercial Company. The truck was loaded with sugar bound for Pulupandan from the Lumañgob Sugar Central which belonged to the defendant. Upon crossing a bridge near the intersection of the Pulupandan and Maao roads and while the truck was travelling at the rate of from 40 to 50 kilometers an hour, Moralda unexpectedly met a car coming in the opposite direction from Pulupandan. To avoid the imminent collision he made a false maneuver and the truck fell into a ditch, turned turtle, and the engine caught fire. As a result of the accident Moralda's clothes and those of the child with him caught fire, and both suffered serious burns on their bodies. Moralda died a few days later as a result of the accident, notwithstanding the assistance rendered him.
The foregoing proven facts are not disputed by the parties and the only question at issue is whether or not there was notorious negligence on the part of Moralda, preventing the plaintiff from obtaining the compensation claimed by her, as provided by section 4 of Act No. 3428.1awphil.net
The road on which the truck was traveling at the time of the accident formed a sufficiently steep slope and not only did Moralda drive the truck at the said speed but he also drove on the right side of the road without sounding his horn. We agree with the court that Moralda acted with notorious negligence in driving the truck at that speed under such circumstances, because any chauffeur employing ordinary diligence and care would not have driven the truck at more than 20 kilometers an hour in order to forestall any unexpected accident. If Moralda had maintained the truck he was driving at a reasonable speed, taking into consideration the fact that he was descending a slope that there was a curve in the road, that the front view was as fully loaded with sugar, he would have been able to control it when he unexpectedly met the car, thereby preventing the truck from falling into a ditch and the engine from catching fire, which caused his burns and resulted in his death. We hold, therefore, that inasmuch as the direct and immediate cause of the accident was Moralda's own notorious negligence in driving the truck in the manner above stated, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any compensation from the defendant in conformity with section 4 of Act No. 3428.
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, without costs.
So Ordered.
Malcolm, Villa-Real, Butte, and Goddard, JJ., concur.