Heirs of Completo v. Albayda, Jr.

15ft/sec] in discharging the duty of care because of the physical

Heirs of Redentor Completo, and Elpidio Abiad v. Sgt. Amando
Albayda, Jr.
2010 / Nachura [Negilgence > Standard of conduct > Special
circumstance]
Facts
Albayda is a Master Sergeant of the PH Air Force, and
Completo was the taxi driver of a Toyota Corolla which was owned by
Abiad. Albayda was riding a bike on his way to the office, when
Completo’s taxi bumped and sideswept him, causing serious physical
injuries. He [Albayda] was brought to the PH Air Force General
Hospital, but he was transferred to the AFP Medical Center because he
sustained a fracture and there was no orthopedic doctor available in
the first hospital. He was confined from 27 Aug 1997 to 11 Feb 1998,
and again in 23 Feb to 22 Mar 1998 [approx. 7 months].
Conciliation before the barangay failed, so Albayda filed a complaint
for physical injuries through reckless imprudence against Completo
before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay. Completo filed a
counter-charge of damage to property through reckless imprudence
against Albayda. The Office of the City Prosecutor recommended the
filing of an information for Albayda’s complaint, and Completo’s
complaint [against Albayda] was dismissed. Albayda manifested his
reservation to file a separate civil action for damages against Completo
and Abiad.
Albayda alleged that Completo’s negligence is the proximate cause
of the incident. He demanded the following damages and their
respective amounts: Actual damages – 276,550; Moral damages –
600,000; Exemplary damages – 200,000; Attorney’s fees – 25,000 +
1,000 per court appearance.
On the other hand, Completo alleged that he was carefully driving
the taxicab when he heard a strange sound from the taxicab’s rear right
side. He found Albayda lying on the road, holding his left leg, so he
brought Albayda to PH Air Force General Hospital. Completo asserted
that he was an experienced driver, and that he already reduced his
speed to 20km even before reaching the intersection. In contrast,
Albayda rode his bicycle at high speed, causing him to lose control of
the bicycle. Completo said that Albayda had no cause of action.
Several people testified for each side, but here are some notes on
the testimony of the owner of the taxi driver, Abiad. Abiad said that
aside from being a soldier, he also held franchises of taxicabs and
passenger jeepneys, and being a taxicab operator, he would wake up
early to personally check the taxicabs. When Completo applied as a
taxicab driver, Abiad required him to show his bio-data, NBI clearance,
and driver’s license. Completo never figured in a vehicular accident
since he was employed, and according to Abiad, he [Completo] was a
good driver and good man.
advantages the former has over the latter.
It was proven by a preponderance of evidence that Completo failed to
exercise reasonable diligence.
 He was overspeeding at the time he hit Albayda’s bicycle; he did
not slow down even when he approached the intersection
 Such negligence was the sole and proximate cause of the injuries
sustained by Albayda
 It was proven that Albayda had the right of way since he reached
the intersection ahead of Completo
NCC 2180 cited – obligation imposed by NCC 2176 is demandable also
for those persons for whom one is responsible. Employers are liable for
damage caused by employees, but the responsibility ceases upon
proof that employers observed the diligence of the good father of the
family in the selection and supervision of employees. The burden of
proof is on the employer. The responsibility of two or more persons
who are liable for QD is solidary. The employer’s civil liability for his
employee’s negligent acts is also primary and direct, owing to his own
negligence in selecting and supervising them, and this liability attaches
even if the employer is not in the vehicle at the time of collision.
In the selection of employees, employers are required to examine
them as to their qualifications, experience, and service records. With
respect to supervision, employers should formulate SOPs and monitor
their implementation, and impose disciplinary measures for
breaches. To establish these factors in a trial involving the issue of
vicarious [secondary] liability, employers must submit concrete proof,
including documentary evidence.
ABIAD’S EVIDENCE CONSISTED ENTIRELY OF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE,
AND THIS IS INSUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE LEGAL PRESUMPTION
THAT HE WAS NEGLIGENT IN THE SELECTION AND SUPERVISION OF
COMPLETO.
On Damages
CA rightfully deleted the award of actual damages because Albayda
failed to present documentary evidence to establish the amount
incurred. Temperate damages may be recovered when the court finds
that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be
proved with certainty. Moral damages are awarded in QDs causing
physical injuries, so the award is proper. The award of attorney’s fees is
deleted for failure to prove that petitioners acted in bad faith in
refusing to satisfy respondent’s just and valid claim.

RTC rendered judgment in favor of Albayda, and the defendants are

ordered to pay actual [46k] and moral [400k] damages, and attorney’s
fees [25k]. Upon appeal at the CA, the court affirmed RTC’s decision
with modifications [no more actual damages; awarded temperate
damages [40k]; moral damages only 200k; Completo and Abiad are
solidarily liable to pay Albayda; added legal interest].
Issues and Holding

1. WON CA erred in finding that Completo was the one who

caused the collision. NO
2. WON Abiad failed to prove that he observed the diligence of a
good father of the family. YES
3. WON the award of moral and temperate damages and
attorney’s fees for Albayda had no basis. NO / NO / YES
4.
Ratio

On Negligence

It is a rule in negligence suits that the plaintiff has the burden of

proving by a preponderance of evidence the motorist’s breach in his
duty of care owed to the plaintiff, that the motorist was negligent in
failing to exercise the diligence required to avoid injury to the plaintiff,
and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury
suffered. NCC 2176 quoted, and said that the question of the
motorist’s negligence is a question of fact. Usually, more will be
required of a motorist [25mi/hr = 37ft/sec] than a bicyclist [10mi/hr =