G.R. No. 174161 - R TRANSPORT CORPORATION, VS. LUISITO G. YU.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendants Rizal Transport and Metro Manila Transport Corporation to be primarily and solidarily liable and defendant Antonio Parraba Gimena subsidiarily liable to plaintiff Luisito Yu as follows: Actual damages in the amount of Php78,357.00 subject to interest at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint until fully paid; Loss of income in the amount of Php500,000.00; Moral damages in the amount of P150,000.00; Exemplary damages in the amount of P20,000.00; Attorneys fees in the amount of P10,000.00; and Costs of suit. [7] On September 9, 2005, the CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC with modification that defendant Antonio Gimena is made solidarily liable for the damages caused to respondent. According to the appellate court, considering that the negligence of Antonio Gimena was sufficiently proven by the records of the case, and that no evidence of whatever nature was presented by petitioner to support its defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees, petitioner, as the employer of Gimena, may be held liable for the damage caused. The CA noted that the fact that petitioner is not the registered owner of the bus which caused the death of the victim does not exculpate it from liability. [8] Thereafter, petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was further denied by the CA in its Resolution [9] dated August 8, 2006. Hence, the present petition. Petitioner essentially invokes the following ground to support its petition: I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE RULING OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT FINDING PETITIONER LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF ITS EMPLOYEE, WHICH WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. Petitioner insists that the CA and the RTC were incorrect in ruling that its driver was negligent for aside from the mere speculations and uncorroborated testimonies of the police officers on duty at the time of the accident, no other evidence had been adduced to prove that its driver was driving in a reckless and imprudent manner. It asserts that contrary to the findings of the courts below, the bus from which the victim alighted is actually the proximate cause of the victims death for having unloaded its passengers on the lane where the subject bus was traversing. Moreover, petitioner reiterates its argument that since it is not the registered owner of the bus which bumped the victim, it cannot be held liable for the damage caused by the same. We disagree. Time and again, it has been ruled that whether a person is negligent or not is a question of fact which this Court cannot pass upon in a petition for review on certiorari , as its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law. [10] This Court is not bound to weigh all over again the evidence adduced by the parties, particularly where the findings of both the trial and the appellate courts on the matter of petitioners negligence coincide. As a ge