BUSLAW: Valenzuela vs. Court of Appeals, Richard Li and Alexander Commercial

This is a case of negligence wherein the plaintiff is suing for moral damages. Case is presented as follows:

CASE FACTS

Plaintiff’s version:

Plaintiff, Lourdes Valenzuela was driving a blue Mitsubishi Lancer with Plate Number FFU 542 at around 2:00 in the morning of June 24, 1990 along Aurora Blvd going towards Manila. Noticing something wrong her tires, she stopped at a lighted place and asked the people to verify her flat tire and to ask help if needed. She parked her car along the sidewalk turning on her emergency lights. Plaintiff was standing at the left side of the rear of her car when she was suddenly bumped by a 1987 Mitsubishi Lancer driven by defendant Richard Li. The impact caused her to be thrown against the windshield of the car of Mr. Li destroying it in the process, after which she fell on the ground.
When plaintiff was pulled out, it was found that her left leg was severed up to the middle of her thigh with only some skin and muscle connected to the rest of her body. Amputation was performed on her leg. She was also confined in UERM for 20 days and eventually fitted by an artificial leg. The plaintiff sued for moral damages amounting to a million pesos and other related expenses.

Defendant’s version:

The defendant, Richard Li, denied the allegations of negligence stating that he did not see the plaintiff due to temporary blindness. According to his statement, he was traveling along Aurora Blvd. at 55kph when another car coming from the opposite direction traveling at 80kph caused his blindness by the car’s “full bright lights”. He further stated that the plaintiff’s car was not parked properly (no parking lights or early warning device) and the car’s midnight blue color and the area’s poor lightning disabled him from noticing the car. Also addressed in the complaint is the car’s registered owner, Alexander Commercial. The defendants counterclaimed for damages, asserting that the plaintiff was reckless as she was not a registered driver.

Statements of Witnesses:

PFC Felix Ramos (Police Investigator) – prepared the vehicular accident report and sketch of the cars involved in the accident. Did not exactly state in his report how near the plaintiff’s car was to the sidewalk. He also could not remember other details such as whether there was indeed an early warning device

Rogelio Rodriguez (witness for the plaintiff) – supported the statement of Ms. Valenzuela stating that the complainant did indeed step out of her car and opened the trunk. He also saw the car of the defendant hit the plaintiff. He even further added that the defendant was under the influence of liquor. He deduced this by the “smell” of the defendant.

DECISION OF THE COURTS

The lower trial courts ruled, “The defendant Richard Li is guilty of gross negligence and liable for damages under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. The trial court likewise held Alexander Commercial, Inc., Li’s employer, jointly and severally liable for damages pursuant to Article 2180.” The lower court also ordered the guilty party to pay Ma. Lourdes Valenzuela several indicated sums representing damages.

The defendant filed for a New Trial and Reconsideration citing evidence/testimony, which they believe the Lower Courts, might have considered in making their decision. Their motion was denied compelling them to elevate their case to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals also supported the rulings of the lower court. However, it absolved Alexander Commercial from being liable and abridged the amount of moral damages from P1,000,000 to P500,000.

Both parties then filed before the Supreme Court, two separate petitions. The plaintiff questioned the decision of the Court of Appeals on absolving Alexander Commercial, Inc. from its liability and the reduction of actual and moral damages. The defendant on the other hand, stated that he should be released from liability because the accident was caused by the plaintiff’s own negligence. He then added that if the court should find him guilty of negligence, such negligence should be reduced due to the negligence of Valenzuela.

The Supreme Court also reinstated the decision of the Regional Trial Court. Alexander Inc. is again liable and moral damages were restored to the original P1,000,000.

The high court ruled that the defendant was negligent. They described negligence as “conduct of which creates an undue risk of harm to others”. Richard Li was negligent as proved by evidence presented in court: he was driving at a fast speed on a slippery road under the influence of liquor. As a licensed driver, he should not be driving at a fast speed on a slippery road under the influence of liquor. By doing so, he posed undue risk of harm to the unsuspecting public.

The employer, Alexander Inc., was liable under the concept of pater familias, which notes that liability ultimately falls upon the employer for his failure to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of his employees.

OPINION

When we were in High School, we had a debate/logic subject wherein we discussed different fallacies that one can commit during debate. One such fallacy, which stuck to my mind, was argumentum ad misericordiam or the argument with the use of pity. It is when one appeals to another’s sense of pity to get what he or she wants. In politics this can be called the “sympathy vote”. As in the case, the plaintiff lost a leg in an accident caused primarily by the defendant. This could be very much be in her favor since losing a body part can be very tragic indeed. I do agree that the defendant is guilty of negligence, however, I want to note several instances, which I think the court might have neglected to include in its assessment of the case:

1. Negligence of the plaintiff – It was noted in the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff was not a licensed driver. I noticed that this is the first and last time that this statement was mentioned in the case. I do not know whether it was indeed true or the defendant was just stating this to absolve himself of damages. Nevertheless, supposing that the plaintiff is indeed unlicensed, that is negligence in her part. She should not be driving a car in the first place. But since the loss that she suffered is larger compared to that of Mr. Li, the decision is in favor of her. The courts should not have discounted her negligence and should have reduced the damages paid by the defendant. As stated in Article 2179, “When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded”. If the plaintiff was indeed negligent then damages paid by defendant should be reduced.

2. The Supreme Court’s statement that the witness of the plaintiff is an “uninterested witness” – I believe that the witness might have been partial to the plaintiff, which might have made his subjective statements. I said partial because he described the plaintiff as “beautiful”. Beauty as we all know, is in the eye of the beholder. The point that her beauty caught his eye would have blinded him from seeing other things and might have been biased about the whole thing. The witness concluded that the defendant was under the influence of liquor because he “could smell it very well”. That is a subjective statement with no evidential proof to support its claim. It was mentioned in the case that the witness owns a beerhouse. What if the alcohol that he smelled might be from himself? Also, the police investigator neglected to take the blood alcohol levels of the defendant. What if it was only Li’s companion who was drinking in the car and mayhap, spilled the beer in the car? Or even spilled the beer on Li? From experience we know that any strong smell confined in a closed environment (aircon) will enable the smell to stick to one’s clothes and hair. In this case, beer contains alcohol that will definitely stick. I believe the only immutable proof will be a blood test indicating that the defendant’s alcohol levels are beyond the legal limit.

3. Efficiency of the Police Investigator – An investigator should have a keen eye for detail. They should be able to see what her people might have missed out. Based on the testimony of the police investigator, he has shown to be very inefficient. He testified that the plaintiff’s car was “near the sidewalk”. Again, we have our own definition of what is “near” and what is “far”. The police’s “near” might have been misconstrued. An actual measurement should have done as to the distance to settle disputes as to what is “near”. Also, he could not even remember as to whether the hazard lights of the plaintiff’s car were on and did not even notice whether there was an early warning device!

To conclude, inasmuch as I sympathize with the plaintiff for losing a leg, I still believe that defendant should pay for mitigated damages. I am convinced that he is negligent in a sense that he was driving at a fast speed in a slippery road but NOT under the influence of alcohol. Moreover, the sum of amounts that he should pay should be reduced because the plaintiff was also negligent in a sense that she should not be driving a car in the first place due to her lack of license.

I also believe that Alexander Inc. is still liable. Though it may not be fair that the time of accident happened not during company time and not even in company business, Alexander Inc. should have exercised due diligence as that of a good father of the family in the selection and especially, the supervision of his employees. If it was indeed a company car, the company should have written policies on the use of the car. They also should have exercised diligence in investigating whether the employee that they will be giving the use of car is a responsible driver. As such the case, Mr. Li was irresponsible in a sense that “he was driving very fast on slippery road.” We do not know if this was the first this happened or the last, but ignorance does not excuse one from punishment of the law. It is acknowledged that the company cannot know where the employee takes the car 24 hours a day, but they did lack policies and proof that they were diligent in their selection of employees.

Introduction

Wow! I have another new blog! I think I would get to update this more than my other blog supposedly dedicated to my literary side. Since I'm writing papers more recently than poems, I think that could happen.

I have two subjects this term: Business Law and Business Economics. I'll be posting papers that I'll be making for both subjects here. Anyone is welcome to read. Will also provide email for comments.