Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > August 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-14427 August 29, 1960 - BATANGAS TRANS. CO. v. GALICANO A. RIVERA, ET AL.

109 Phil 175:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-14427. August 29, 1960.]

BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Petitioner, v. GALICANO A. RIVERA and THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, Respondents.

Ozaeta, Gibbs & Ozaeta for Petitioner.

Fernando M. Mangubat for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION; INJURIES SUFFERED WHILE DRIVING ARISE OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT; COMPENSABLE. — Since the injury was received while the claimant was driving the bus, i.e., while performing the very duty he was employed to perform, the injury clearly arose "out of, and in the course" of employment and is compensable.

2. ID.; WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION; FINDINGS OF FACT; GENERAL RULE; EXCEPTION. — As a rule, findings of fact by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission are final and conclusive (Madrigal Shipping Co., Inc. v. Nieves Baens Del Rosario, Et Al., L-13130, Oct. 31, 1959; St. Thomas Aquinas Academy v. WCC, Et Al., L-12297, April 22, 1955; NLU v. Sta. Ana, (102 Phil., 302; 54 Off. Gaz., [8] 2529) unless the lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion, or said findings find absolutely no support in the evidence on record, or are unsupported by substantial or credible evidence (PAL v. PAL Employees Association, L-8197, Oct. 31, 1959; Donato v. Phil. Marine Officers’ Association, L-12506, May 18, 1959; 15c and Up Employees Association v. Dept. and Bazar Free Worker’ Union, L-9168, Oct. 18, 1956; NLU v. Dinglasan, (98 Phil., 609; 52 Off. Gaz., [4] 1933).

3. APPEAL AND ERROR; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; ASSESSMENT OF; BELONGS TO LOWER COURTS. — Assessing the credibility of witnesses is a task more properly vested in the lower courts, and findings thereon should not be disturbed.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.:


The Batangas Transportation Co. appeals by certiorari from the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission dated June 27, 1958, holding said company liable for compensation to its employee Galicano Rivera for the loss of his left leg; and from the resolution of said Commission en banc, dated August 8, 1958, denying its motion for reconsideration.

As gleaned from his petition and his brief, petitioner predicates his appeal on the following:clubjuris

(1) that the injury suffered by respondent Rivera did not arise out of his employment;

(2) that the injury was due to Rivera’s own "notorious negligence" ;

(3) that the Workmen’s Compensation Commission made conclusions which find "absolutely no support in the evidence on record" ;

(4) that petitioner is not liable under the law;

(5) that the Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in holding it liable.

Petitioner disputes the findings of fact made by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, that on March 13, 1956, the appellant’s bus No. 502 was running from Batangas to Anilao, via Mabini at a moderate speed of about 20 kms. per hour following behind a jeepney; that when the bus driven by Rivera was about 4 meters from said jeepney, the latter suddenly stopped, without any warning, as it had no stoplight, and, as an act of emergency, to avoid hitting it, Rivera applied his brakes and swerved his bus to the left side of the road, in the process of which, his bus fell into a canal and turned turtle with its wheels in the air; that the curve where the accident occurred was not sharp, and could have been hardly noticed by Rivera from his running vehicle; that the testimony of Felipe Balita and Felisa Buenviaje, petitioner’s witnesses, are unreliable, for the reasons stated in the decision of the Hearing Examiner, affirmed by the Commissioner.

Petitioner claims that contrary to the above findings, Rivera had decided to overtake the jeepney when still several meters away from the place of the accident, and that while the jeepney was still 20 meters away from where it stopped, he was already trying to overtake it; that the bus driven by Rivera was running at about 50 kms per hour immediately prior to and at the time he was overtaking the jeepney; that despite entreaties of passengers for him to slow down, Rivera persisted in trying to overtake the jeepney; that Rivera tried to overtake the jeepney at a sharp curve, where a vehicle coming from the opposite direction cannot be seen until near the curve itself; that petitioner’s witnesses, particularly Felipe Balita and Felisa Buenviaje, are reliable, and the reasons given by the Commission in discrediting their testimony are erroneous, arbitrary, and without basis.

From the above factual premises averred by petitioner, it is asserted that the injury sustained by respondent Rivera did not arise "out of" his employment; that it was due to his own "notorious negligence" ; and that, therefore, petitioner is not liable under the law.

Under Section 46 of Act 3428, as amended, commonly known as the Workmen’s Compensation Act, appeals from the rulings of the Compensation Commission are governed by the rules on appeals from decisions of the Court of Industrial Relations. As a general rule, findings of fact by the Industrial Court or the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, are final and conclusive (Madrigal Shipping Co., Inc. v. Nieves Baens Del Rosario, Et Al., L-13130, Oct. 31, 1959; St. Thomas Aquinas Academy v. WCC, Et Al., L-12297, April 22, 1959; NLU v. Sta. Ana, 102 Phil., 302; 54 Off. Gaz. [8] 2529), unless the lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion, or said findings find absolutely no support in the evidence on record, or are unsupported by substantial or credible evidence (PAL v. PAL Employees Association, L-8197, Oct. 31, 1958; Donato v. Phil. Marine Officers’ Association, L-12506, May 18, 1959; 15� and UP Employees Association v. Dept. and Bazaar Free Workers’ Union, L-9168, Oct. 18, 1956; NLU v. Dinglasan, 98 Phil., 649; 52 Off. Gaz. [4] 1933).

In the case at bar, from excerpts of the transcript reproduced in the pleadings, Galicano Rivera and Silvestre Arguelles testified that, more or less, the speed of the bus immediately before the accident was 20 kms. per hour; that the jeepney ahead suddenly stopped without warning when the bus was about 4 meters behind, forcing Rivera to swerve to the left of the road, resulting in the accident. On the other hand, witnesses for petitioner Felipe Balita, conductor of the aforesaid motor bus, and Felisa Buenviaje gave testimonies directly opposed to the version of Rivera.

It can thus be seen that the issue really is centered largely upon matters of credibility and appreciation of the weight of testimony given by witnesses, for, unquestionably, the facts found by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission find support in the evidence on record. In matters of this nature, findings of the lower court are given much weight and should not be disturbed unless on a clear showing of failure to consider evidence on record, or failure to consider fundamental and patent logical relationships in the evidence, amounting to a clear travesty of justice or grave abuse of discretion.

This Court is not inclined to make such a conclusion on the basis of the record available. There is sufficient basis in the evidence to support the findings made. Apart from oral testimonies, it is improbable that the bus, on a very bumpy road ("rugged and stony" according to the Commission) such as the one on which it was traveling at the time of the accident, could be running at a speed of 50 kms. per hour. Petitioner’s argument that the inverted position of the bus after the accident could only mean that it was traveling at a fast speed, is far too speculative, for, it could as well be argued that this was due to the depth of the canal (about knee-deep) in which it fell, which was enough to put the bus off balance,’ even if it was not overspeeding.

As to the testimony of Felipe Balita, the conductor of the bus, there is nothing in his testimony as reproduced by petitioner which should radically change the perspective of the case, although it was really error for the Commission to say that his testimony as to the speed should not be accepted just because he could not state the exact speed and is merely based on calculation or observation. Necessarily, one cannot be expected to give with certainty the exact speed of a moving vehicle without the aid of a mechanical measuring device (such as a speedometer), and the fact alone that testimony on such matter is based on calculation does not suffice to discredit it. However, in refusing to give credence to his testimony, the Commission also took into consideration an alleged bias of this witness in favor of the Company, and this finding, involving as it does a factual inquiry, based to a large extent on the demeanor of the witness during the proceedings, should not be disturbed.

As to Felisa Buenviaje, it would really seem that her testimony should be viewed with caution. She executed an affidavit, Exhibit "2", to the effect that Rivera was driving very fast at the time of the accident. Later, for purposes of obtaining monetary settlement from the Batangas Transportation Co., she executed Exhibit "C" (Annex 2 of Answer), to the effect that Rivera was not overspeeding when the accident took place. Still later, in open court, she repudiated Exhibit "C" and admitted that she signed it knowing its contents to be false.

At any rate, assessing the credibility of witnesses is a task more properly vested in the lower courts, and findings thereon should not be easily disturbed. Moreover, since the injury was received while the claimant was driving the bus; i. e., while performing the very duty he was employed to perform, the injury clearly arose "out of and in the course" of employment and is compensable. As to the affirmative defense of "notorious negligence", petitioner had the burden to establish by substantial evidence the facts constituting such kind of negligence, a task in which the record shows he failed, since even the alleged excessive speed at which claimant allegedly drove the bus is not proved. For this reason, De la Cruz v. Hijos de I. de la Rama, 62 Phil., 653, is not applicable, the circumstances being different. This Court finds no sufficient justification for reversing the findings of fact made by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed. Costs against petitioner.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



August-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12362 August 5, 1960 - CECILIO E. TRINIDAD, ET AL. v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    109 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. L-12800 August 5, 1960 - MELECIO CAJILIG, ET AL. v. FLORA ROBERSON CO.

    109 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-14003 August 5, 1960 - FEDERICO AZAOLA v. CESARIO SINGSON

    109 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. L-14400 August 5, 1960 - FELICISIMO GATMAITAN v. GORGONIO D. MEDINA

    109 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. L-12220 August 8, 1960 - PAULINO J. GARCIA, ET AL. v. PANFILO LEJANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. L-12730 August 22, 1960 - C. N. HODGES v. AMADOR D. GARCIA

    109 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. L-12909 August 24, 1960 - FRANCISCO CRISOLOGO v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. L-14637 August 24, 1960 - ATTY. RODRIGO MATUTINA v. JUDGE TEOFILO B. BUSLON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-15128 August 25, 1960 - CECILIO DIEGO v. SEGUNDO FERNANDO

    109 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. L-13105 August 25, 1960 - LUCINA BAITO v. ANATALIO SARMIENTO

    109 Phil 148

  • G.R. Nos. L-14684-86 August 26, 1960 - CATALINO CAISIP, ET AL. v. HON. JUDGE DOMINGO M. CABANGON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-15315 August 26, 1960 - ABUNDIO MERCED v. HON. CLEMENTINO V. DIEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-15822 August 26, 1960 - MEGIDA TINTIANGCO, ETC., ET AL. v. HON. BERNABE DE AQUINO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. L-9965 August 29, 1960 - LUCINA BIGLANGAWA, ET AL. v. PASTOR. B. CONSTANTINO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-14427 August 29, 1960 - BATANGAS TRANS. CO. v. GALICANO A. RIVERA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-14461 August 29, 1960 - BONIFACIO MERCADO v. PAULO M. MERCADO

    109 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. L-14518 August 29, 1960 - EUGENIA NELAYAN, ET AL. v. CECILIA NELAYAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-14903 August 29, 1960 - KOPPEL INC. v. DANILO DARLUCIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-14904 August 29, 1960 - CONSUELO ARRANZ, ET AL. v. VENERACION BARBERS ARRANZ

    109 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-15076 August 29, 1960 - ENRIQUE FERRER v. HON. E. L. DE LEON, ETC.

    109 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. L-9576 August 31, 1960 - SIXTA VENGASO, ETC. v. CENON BUENCAMINO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. L-9786 August 31, 1960 - ROSITA MASANGCAY, ET AL. v. MARCELO VALENCIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-10111 August 31, 1960 - SOLEDAD ROBLES, ET AL. v. ISABEL MANAHAN DE SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. L-11910 August 31, 1960 - PLASLU v. BOGO-MEDELLIN MILLING CO., INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-11944 August 31, 1960 - PHIL. RACING CLUB, INC., ET AL. v. ARSENIO BONIFACIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-12005 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO FRAGA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. L-12020 August 31, 1960 - FELIXBERTO BULAHAN, ET AL. v. JUAN E. TUASON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. L-12286 August 31, 1960 - JOSE JAVELLANA, ET AL. v. FELICIDAD JAVELLANA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. L-12486 August 31, 1960 - LEONOR GRANA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-12597 August 31, 1960 - FERMIN LACAP, ET AL. v. HON. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ETC.

    109 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-12781 August 31, 1960 - PHIL. RACING CLUB, INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    109 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-12790 August 31, 1960 - JOEL JIMENEZ v. REMEDIOS CAÑIZARES, ET AL.

    109 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. L-12898 August 31, 1960 - ESTANISLAO PABUSTAN v. HON. PASTOR DE GUZMAN, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 278

  • G.R. Nos. L-13129 & L-13179-80 August 31, 1960 - BENGUET CONSOLIDATED UNIONS COUNCIL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. L-13162 August 31, 1960 - C. N. HODGES v. HON. FRANCISCO ARELLANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-13177 August 31, 1960 - SWEE DIN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 287

  • G.R. Nos. L-13219-20 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMIGIO CRUZ

    109 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. L-13281 August 31, 1960 - SIARI VALLEY ESTATES, INC. v. FILEMON LUCASAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. L-13353 August 31, 1960 - DOLORES NARAG v. SALVADOR CECILIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-13581 August 31, 1960 - EPIFANIO S. CESE v. GSIS

    109 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-13801 August 31, 1960 - PAULINA BAUTISTA v. LEONCIO DACANAY, ET AL.

    109 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. L-14101 August 31, 1960 - ADRIANA DE BLANCO v. STA. CLARA TRANS. CO.

    109 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-14107 August 31, 1960 - MIGUEL MENDIOLA, ET AL. v. RICARDO TANCINCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. L-14184 August 31, 1960 - IN RE: PABLO UY YAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-14357 August 31, 1960 - JOHANNA H. BORROMEO v. EZEQUIEL ZABALLERO, SR.

    109 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. L-14363 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARIDAD CAPISTRANO

    109 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. L-14601 August 31,1960

    PNB v. EMILIANO DE LA VIÑA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. L-14835 August 31, 1960 - PONCIANO MEDEL, ET AL. v. JULIAN CALASANZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. L-14959 August 31, 1960 - REPUBLIC SAVINGS BANK v. FAR EASTERN SURETY & INS. CO., INC.

    109 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-15153 August 31, 1960 - LUCIO BALONAN v. EUSEBIA ABELLANA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-15186 August 31, 1960 - GONZALO G. DE GUZMAN v. ALFREDO TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    109 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-15325 August 31, 1960 - PROV’L. FISCAL OF RIZAL v. HON. JUDGE CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-15375 August 31, 1960 - BALTAZAR RAGPALA, ET AL. v. J. P. OF TUBOD, LANAO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-15474 August 31, 1960 - ALFREDO B. SAULO v. BRIG. GEN. PELAGIO CRUZ, ETC.

    109 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-15590 August 31, 1960 - ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC. v. CORAZON SEGOVIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-15633 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMITIVO D. ALA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 390