This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2011-08-24 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Driving without a proper license is a violation of traffic regulation. Under Article 2185 of the Civil Code, the legal presumption of negligence arises if at the time of the mishap, a person was violating any traffic regulation. However, in Sanitary Steam Laundry, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[27] we held that a causal connection must exist between the injury received and the violation of the traffic regulation. It must be proven that the violation of the traffic regulation was the proximate or legal cause of the injury or that it substantially contributed thereto. Negligence, consisting in whole or in part, of violation of law, like any other negligence, is without legal consequence unless it is a contributing cause of the injury.[28] Likewise controlling is our ruling in Añonuevo v. Court of Appeals[29] where we reiterated that negligence per se, arising from the mere violation of a traffic statute, need not be sufficient in itself in establishing liability for damages. In said case, Añonuevo, who was driving a car, did not attempt "to establish a causal connection between the safety violations imputed to the injured cyclist, and the accident itself. Instead, he relied on a putative presumption that these violations in themselves sufficiently established negligence appreciable against the cyclist. Since the onus on Añonuevo is to conclusively prove the link between the violations and the accident, we can deem him as having failed to discharge his necessary burden of proving the cyclist's own liability."[30] We took the occasion to state that: The rule on negligence per se must admit qualifications that may arise from the logical consequences of the facts leading to the mishap. The doctrine (and Article 2185, for that matter) is undeniably useful as a judicial guide in adjudging liability, for it seeks to impute culpability arising from the failure of the actor to perform up to a standard established by a legal fiat. But the doctrine should not be rendered inflexible so as to deny relief when in fact there is no causal relation between the statutory violation and the injury sustained. Presumptions in law, while convenient, are not intractable so as to forbid rebuttal rooted in fact. After all, tort law is remunerative in spirit, aiming to provide compensation for the harm suffered by those whose interests have been invaded owing to the conduct of other.[31] | |||||
|
2010-03-03 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1305, covering Lot No. 11909, was issued only on November 15, 1990, and entered in the "Registration Book" of the City of Cebu on December 19, 1990.[5] Therein, the technical description of Lot No. 11909 states that said lot measures about 14,457 square meters, more or less.[6] | |||||
|
2010-03-03 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| On March 20, 1991, petitioner filed in the same cadastral proceedings a "Petition for Registration of Document Under Presidential Decree (P.D.) 1529"[7] in order that a certificate of title be issued in her name, covering the whole Lot No. 11909. In the petition, petitioner alleged that the tenor of the instrument of sale indicated that the sale was for a lump sum or cuerpo cierto, in which case, the vendor was bound to deliver all that was included within said boundaries even when it exceeded the area specified in the contract. Respondents opposed, on the main ground that only 4,000 sq m of Lot No. 11909 was sold to petitioner. They claimed that the sale was not for a cuerpo cierto. They moved for the outright dismissal of the petition on grounds of prescription and lack of jurisdiction. | |||||
|
2007-06-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals failed to give any justification for the award of attorney's fees. Awards of attorney's fees must be based on findings of fact and of law and stated in the decision of the trial court.[21] Further, no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.[22] Hence, we delete the award of attorney's fees. | |||||
|
2004-12-10 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| As to the award of attorney's fees, the same must be deleted since the award of moral and exemplary damages are eliminated.[21] Moreover, the trial court did not give any justification for granting it in its decision. It is now settled that awards of attorney's fees must be based on findings of fact and law, stated in the decision of the trial court.[22] | |||||
|
2004-10-20 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| [It] has not been shown how the alleged negligence of the Cimarron driver contributed to the collision between the vehicles. Indeed, petitioner has the burden of showing a causal connection between the injury received and the violation of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code. He must show that the violation of the statute was the proximate or legal cause of the injury or that it substantially contributed thereto. Negligence consisting in whole or in part, of violation of law, like any other negligence, is without legal consequence unless it is a contributing cause of the injury. Petitioner says that "driving an overloaded vehicle with only one functioning headlight during nighttime certainly increases the risk of accident," that because the Cimarron had only one headlight, there was "decreased visibility," and that the fact that the vehicle was overloaded and its front seat overcrowded "decreased its maneuverability." However, mere allegations such as these are not sufficient to discharge its burden of proving clearly that such alleged negligence was the contributing cause of the injury.[41] | |||||
|
2002-02-06 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| However, for petitioner to be liable, there must be a finding that the act or omission considered as negligent was the proximate cause of the injury caused because the negligence must have a causal connection to the accident.[11] | |||||