Serra v. Mumar

G.R. No. 193861 (March 14, 2012)

Facts:

On the evening of April 3, 2000, a vehicular accident occurred along the National Highway in Barangay Apopong, General Santos City, resulting in the death of Armando Mumar, the husband of respondent Nelfa T. Mumar. The accident involved a Toyota Corolla sedan driven by Armando Tenerife and a van owned by petitioner Paulita aEditha Serra.

Tenerife was driving his sedan towards Polomolok, South Cotabato, when he noticed Serra's van attempting to overtake a passenger jeepney. The van encroached into Tenerife's lane, leading to a collision. The impact caused the sedan to swerve and subsequently collide head-on with Mumar's motorcycle, which was traveling behind the sedan, resulting in Mumar's injuries and eventual death.

Petitioner Serra denied that her van was overtaking the jeepney, claiming instead that the left tire of Tenerife's sedan burst, causing it to sideswipe her van. She argued that this loss of control led to the subsequent collision with Mumar's motorcycle. Following the incident, Nelfa Mumar filed a complaint against Serra for damages due to reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the lower courts erred in finding that the incident was not purely accidental and that the petitioner was liable for damages.
2. Whether the petitioner was negligent in the selection and supervision of her driver.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding damages for loss of earning capacity in the absence of documentary evidence.

Arguments Presented:

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The accident was purely accidental, caused by the bursting of the sedan's tire, which led to Tenerife losing control of his vehicle.
• Petitioner claimed she was not negligent in selecting or supervising her driver, asserting that the burden of proof for negligence lay with the respondent.
• The award for loss of earning capacity was unfounded due to the lack of documentary evidence proving Mumar's income.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• Respondent contended that the arguments presented by the petitioner were merely a rehash of those already addressed by the lower courts.
• The factual findings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) supported the claim of negligence on the part of the petitioner.

Court’s Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court partly granted the petition, affirming the CA's decision but modifying the award for damages. The Court upheld the factual findings of both the RTC and CA, which concluded that Serra's van had encroached on the lane of the sedan, leading to the collision with Mumar's motorcycle. The Court emphasized that the credibility of evidence must align with common experience and reason, finding Serra's testimony lacking credibility.

The Court also addressed the issue of employer liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, stating that employers are liable for damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their duties. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she exercised due diligence in supervising her driver, which contributed to the accident.

Regarding the damages for loss of earning capacity, the Court found that the CA erred in awarding such damages without sufficient documentary evidence. The Court noted that while exceptions exist for self-employed individuals earning below the minimum wage, Mumar's earnings, as testified by Nelfa, exceeded the minimum wage at the time of the accident. Thus, the Court ruled that the CA's computation for loss of earning capacity was unfounded.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

• The presumption of employer liability for the negligent acts of employees under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
• The necessity of documentary evidence to substantiate claims for actual damages, particularly for loss of earning capacity, unless specific exceptions apply.
• The importance of credible evidence that aligns with common experience in determining liability in vehicular accidents.