3/22/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017

1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sabido and Lagunda vs. Custodio, et al.

No. L-21512. August 31, 1966.

PROSPERO SABIDO and ASER LAGUNDA, petitioners,

vs. CARLOS CUSTODIO, BELEN MAKABUHAY
CUSTODIO and THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, respondents.

Quasi-delicts; Where the contributory negligence of petitioners

was as much a proximate cause of the accident as the carrier’s
negligence, their liability is solidary.—Where the carrier (LTB)
bus and its driver were clearly guilty of contributory negligence
for having allowed a passenger to ride on the running board of the
bus, and where the driver of the other vehicle was also guilty of
contributory negligence, because that vehicle was running at a
considerable speed, despite the fact that it was negotiating a
sharp curve, and, instead of being close to its right side of the
road, it was driven on its middle portion thereof and so near the
passenger bus coming from the opposite direction as to sideswipe
a passenger on its running board, the owners of the two vehicle
are liable solidarily for the death of the passenger, although the
liability of one arises from a breach of contract, whereas that of
the other springs from a quasi-delict. Where the concurrent or
successive negligent acts or omission of two more persons,
although acting independently of each other, are, in combination,
the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third person,
and it is impossible to determine in what proportion each
contributed to the injury, either is responsible for the whole
injury, even though his act alone might not have caused the entire
injury, or the same damage might have resulted from the acts of
the other tort-feasor” (38 Am. Jur. 946, 947).

PETITION for review by certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

The f acts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Sabido, Sabido and Associates for petitioners.
     Ernesto S. Tengco for respondents.

CONCEPCION, C.J.:

Prospero Sabido and Aser Lagunda seek the review by

certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals, affirm-
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001785590cd21c9c74220003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/5
3/22/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017

1089

VOL. 17, AUGUST 31, 1966 1089

Sabido and Lagunda vs. Custodio, et al.

ing that of the Court of First Instance of Laguna,

sentencing the Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co., Nicasio Mudales,
and herein petitioners, Prospero Sabido and Aser Lagunda,
to jointly and severally indemnify Belen Makabuhay
Custodio and her son, Agripino Custodio, Jr., in the sum of
P6,000 and to pay the costs of the suit.
The facts are set forth in the decision of the Court of
Appeals from which we quote:

“Upon a careful study and judicious examining of the evidence on

record, we are inclined to concur in the findings made by the trial
court. Here is how the Court a quo analyzed the facts of this case:

‘ln Barrio Halang, Municipality of Lumban, Province of Laguna, two

trucks, one driven by Nicasio Mudales and belonging to Laguna-Tayabas
Bus Company, and the other driven by Aser Lagunda and owned by
Prospero Sabido, going in opposite directions met each other in a road
curve. Agripino Custodio, a passenger of LTB bus, who was hanging on
the left side as truck was full of passengers was sideswiped by the truck
driven by Aser Lagunda. As a result, Agripino Custodio was injured and
died (Exhibit A).
‘lt appears clear f rom the evidence that Agripino Custodio was
hanging on the left side of the LTB bus. Otherwise, were he sitting inside
the truck, he could not have been struck by the six by six truck driven by
Aser Lagunda. This fact alone, of allowing Agripino Custodio to hang on
the side of the truck, makes the defendant Laguna Tayabas Bus
Company liable for damages. For certainly its employees, who are the
driver and conductor were negligent. They should not have allowed
Agripino Custodio to ride their truck in that manner.
‘To avoid any liability, Aser Lagunda and Prospero Sabido throw all
the blame on Nicasio Mudales, From the testimony, however, of Belen
Makabuhay, Agripino Custodio’s widow, we can deduce that Aser
Lagunda was equally negligent as Nicasio Mudales. Belen testified that
the 6 x 6 truck was running fast when it met the LTB Bus. And Aser
Lagunda had time and opportunity to avoid the mishap if he had been
suff iciently caref ul and cautious because the two trucks never collided
with each other, By simply swerving to the right side of the road, the 6 x
6 truck could have avoided hitting Agripino Custodio. It is incredible that
the LTB was running on the middle of the road when passing a curve. He
knows it is dangerous to do so. We are rather of the belief that both
trucks did not keep close to the right side of the road so they side

1090

1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sabido and Lagunda vs. Custodio, et al.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001785590cd21c9c74220003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/5
3/22/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017

swiped each other and thus Agripino Custodio was injured and died. In
other words, both drivers must have driven their trucks not in the proper
lane and are, therefore, both reckless and negligent.

“We might state by way of additional observations that the

sideswiping of the deceased and his two fellow passengers took
place on broad daylight at about 9:30 in the morning of June 9,
1955 when the LTB bus with full load to passengers was
negotiating a sharp curve of a bumpy and sliding downward a
slope, whereas the six by six truck was climbing up with no
cargoes or passengers on board but for three helpers, owner
Sabido and driver Lagunda (tsn. 308–309, Mendoza). Under the
above-stated condition, there exists strong persuasion to accept
what Belen Makabuhay and Sofia Mesina, LTB passengers, had
testified to the effect that the 6 x 6 cargo truck was running at a
fast rate of speed (tsn. 15, 74, 175 Mendoza). From the lips of no
less than driver Lagunda himself come the testimonial admission
that the presence of three hanging passengers located at the left
side of the bus was noted when his vehicle was still at a distance
of 5 or 7 meters from the bus, and yet despite the existence of a
shallow canal on the right side of the road which he could pass
over with ease, Lagunda did not care to exercise prudence to avert
the accident simply because to use his own language the canal ‘is
not a passage of trucks.’ " "

Based upon these facts, the Court of First Instance of

Laguna and the Court of Appeals concluded that the
Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co.—hereinafter referred to as the
carrier—and Its driver Nicasio Mudales (none of whom has
appealed), had violated the contract of carriage with
Agripino Custodio, whereas petitioners Sabido and
Lagunda were guilty of a quasi delict, by reason of which
all of them were held solidarily liable in the manner above
indicated.
Petitioners now maintain: (1) that the death of Agripino
Custodio was due exclusively to the negligence of the
carrier and its driver; (2) that petitioners were not guilty of
negligence in connection with the matter under
consideration; (3) that petitioners cannot be held solidarily
liable with the carrier and its driver; and (4) that the
complaint against petitioners herein should be dismissed,
With respect to the first two (2) points, which are
interrelated, it is urged that the carrier and its driver were
clearly guilty of negligence for having allowed Agripino
Custodio to ride on the running board of the bus, in
violation of Section 42 of Act No. 3992, and that this
negligence
1091

VOL. 17, AUGUST 31, 1966 1091

Sabido and Lagunda vs. Custodio, et al.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001785590cd21c9c74220003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/5
3/22/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017

was the proximate cause of Agripino’s death. It should be

noted, however, that the lower court had, likewise, found
the petitioners guilty of contributory negligence, which was
as much a proximate cause of the accident as the carrier’s
negligence, for petitioners’ truck was running at a
considerable speed, despite the fact that it was negotiating
a sharp curve, and, instead of being close to its right side of
the road, said truck was driven on its middle portion and so
near the passenger bus coming from the opposite direction
as to sideswipe a passenger riding on its running board.
The views of the Court of Appeals on the speed of the
truck and its location at the time of the accident are in the
nature of findings of fact, which we cannot disturb in a
petition for review by certiorari, such as the one at bar. At
any rate, the correctness of said findings is borne out by the
very testimony of petitioner Lagunda to the effect that he
saw the passengers riding on the running board of the bus
while the same was still five (5) or seven (7) meters away
from the truck driven by him. Indeed, the distance between
the two (2) vehicles was such that he could have avoided
sideswiping said passengers if his track were not running
at a great speed.
Although the negligence of the carrier and its driver is
independent; in its execution, of the negligence of the truck
driver and its owner, both acts of negligence are the
proximate cause of the death of Agripino Custodio. In fact,
the negligence of the first two (2) would not have produced
this result without the negligence of petitioners’ herein.
What is more, petitioners’ negligence was the last, in point
of time, for Custodio was on the running board of the
carrier’s bus sometime before petitioners’ truck came from
the opposite direction, so that, in this sense, petitioners’
truck had the last clear chance.
Petitioners contend that they should not be held
solidarily liable with the carrier and its driver, because the
latter’s liability arises from a breach of contract, whereas
that of the former springs from a quasi delict. The rule is,
however, that

“According to the great weight of authority, where the concurrent

or successive negligent acts or omission of two or

1092

1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sabido and Lagunda vs. Custodio, et al.

more persons, although acting independently of each other, are, in

combination, the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a
third person, and it is impossible to determine in what proportion
each contributed to the injury, either is responsible for the whole
injury, even though his act alone might not have caused the entire
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001785590cd21c9c74220003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/5
3/22/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017

injury, or the same damage might have resulted from the acts of
the other tort-feasor x x x.” (38 Am. Jur. 946, 947.)

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed,

with costs against the petitioners herein. It is so ordered.

Justices J.B.L. Reyes, Barrera, Dizon, Makalintal, J.P.

Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, concur. Mr. Justice
Regala is on leave.

Judgment affirmed.

Note.—In Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez, 56 Phil. 177, the

owner of the passenger bus and the owner of a car, which
collided with the bus due to the negligence of the drivers of
both vehicles, were held solidarily liable for damages to the
injured passenger.

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001785590cd21c9c74220003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/5