MA. LOURDES VALENZUELA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, RICHARD LI and ALEXANDER COMMERCIAL, INC., respondents.
G.R. No. 115024 [February 7, 1996]
Facts:
At around 2:00 in the morning of June 24, 1990, plaintiff Ma. Lourdes Valenzuela was driving a blue Mitsubishi lancer from her restaurant at Marcos highway to her home. While travelling along Aurora Blvd., she noticed something wrong with her tires; she stopped at a lighted place where there were people, to verify whether she had a flat tire and to solicit help if needed. Having been told by the people present that her rear right tire was flat and that she cannot reach her home in that car’s condition, she parked along the sidewalk, about 1½ feet away, put on her emergency lights, alighted from the car, and went to the rear to open the trunk.
She was standing at the left side of the rear of her car pointing to the tools to a man who will help her fix the tire when she was suddenly bumped by a 1987 Mitsubishi Lancer driven by defendant Richard Li and registered in the name of defendant Alexander Commercial, Inc. Because of the impact plaintiff was thrown against the windshield of the car of the defendant, which was destroyed, and then fell to the ground. She was pulled out from under defendant’s car. Plaintiff’s left leg was severed up to the middle of her thigh, with only some skin and sucle connected to the rest of the body. She was brought to the UERM Medical Memorial Center where she was found to have a “traumatic amputation, leg, left up to distal thigh (above knee).” She was confined in the hospital for twenty (20) days and was eventually fitted with an artificial leg.
Issues:
1.) Whether or not Li was negligent.
2.) Whether or not Valenzuela was contributory negligent.
3.) Whether or not Alexander Commercial, Inc. Li’s employer is liable.
Held:
1.) Yes. A witness testified that Li’s car was being driven at a “very fast” speed, racing towards the general direction of Araneta Avenue. He also saw the car hit Valenzuela, hurtling her against the windshield of the defendant’s Mitsubishi Lancer, from where she eventually fell under the defendant’s car. Moreover the witness declared that he observed Valenzuela’s car parked parallel and very near the sidewalk, contrary to Li’s allegation that Valenzuela’s car was close to the center of the right lane.
2.) No. The Court held that Valenzuela was not negligent applying the emergency rule.
Under the “emergency rule,” an individual who suddenly finds himself in a situation of danger and is required to act without much time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a better solution, unless the emergency was brought by his own negligence.
Valenzuela did exercise the standard reasonably dictated by the emergency and could not be considered to have contributed to the unfortunate circumstances which eventually led to the amputation of one of her lower extremities. The emergency which led her to park her car on a sidewalk in Aurora Boulevard was not of her own making, and it was evident that she had taken all reasonable precautions. Obviously, the only negligence ascribable was the negligence of Li on the night of the accident.
3.) Yes. Alexander Commercial, Inc. has not demonstrated, to the Court’s satisfaction, that it exercised the care and diligence of a good father of the family in entrusting its company car to Li. No allegations were made as to whether or not the company took the steps necessary to determine or ascertain the driving proficiency and history of Li, to whom it gave full and unlimited use of a company car. Not having been able to overcome the burden of demonstrating that it should be absolved of liability for entrusting its company car to Li, said company, based on the principle of bonus pater familias, ought to be jointly and severally liable with the former for the injuries sustained by Ma. Lourdes Valenzuela during the accident.
Li was an Assistant Manager of Alexander Commercial, Inc. He admitted that his functions as Assistant Manager did not require him to scrupulously keep normal office hours as he was required quite often to perform work outside the office, visiting prospective buyers and contacting and meeting with company clients. These meetings, clearly, were not strictly confined to routine hours because, as a managerial employee tasked with the job of representing his company with its clients, meetings with clients were both social as well as work-related functions. The service car assigned to Li by Alexander Commercial, Inc. therefore enabled both Li – as well as the corporation – to put up the front of a highly successful entity, increasing the latter’s goodwill before its clientele. It also facilitated meeting between Li and its clients by providing the former with a convenient mode of travel.
