BJDC Construction v Lanuzo, GR No. 161151.

March 24, 2014

Principle: The party alleging the negligence of the other as the cause of injury has the burden to establish the
allegation with competent evidence. If the action based on negligence is civil in nature, the proof required is
preponderance of evidence.

Case Summary: This case involves a claim for damages arising from the death of a motorcycle rider in a nighttime
accident due to the supposed negligence of a construction company then undertaking re-blocking work on a national
highway. The plaintiffs insisted that the accident happened because the construction company did not provide
adequate lighting on the site, but the latter countered that the fatal accident was caused by the negligence of the
motorcycle rider himself. The trial court decided in favor of the construction company, but the Court of Appeals (CA)
reversed the decision and ruled for the plaintiffs.

Hence, this appeal.

FACTS:

Nena Lanuzo filed a complaint for damages against BJDC Construction, a single proprietorship. BJDC is engaged in
construction business, serving as the contractor of the project of the re-blocking and to repair the damaged portion
of a national highway in Camarines Sur.

She alleged that she was the surviving spouse of the late Balbino who died in an accident that transpired at the
construction site of the re-bllocking work at about 6:30pm on Oct. 30, 1997; that Balbino’s Honda motorcycle
sideswiped the road barricade placed by BJDC, causing him to lose control of his motorcycle and to crash on the
newly cemented road; and that BJDC’s failure to place illuminated warning signs on the site, especially during night
time, was the proximate cause of the death of Balbino.

In its answer, BJDC denied the allegations, insisting that it had installed warning signs and lights along the highway
and on the barricades of the project; that at the time of the incident, the lights were working and switched on; that
its project was duly inspected by the DPWH, the Office of the Mayor, and the Municipal Police Station; and that it
was found to have satisfactorily taken measures to ensure the safety of motorists. BJDC further alleged that since the
start of the project, it installed several warning signs, such as big overhead streamers, road signs, and barricades,
and that the unaffected portion of the highway was temporarily widened in the adjacent road shoulder to allow two–
way vehicular traffic. BJDC insisted that Balbino’s death was an accident brought about by his own negligence, as
confirmed by the police investigation report that stated, among others, that Balbino was not wearing any helmet at
that time, and the accident occurred while Balbino was overtaking another motorcycle; and that the police report also
stated that the road sign/barricade installed on the road had a light. Thus, it sought the dismissal of the complaint
and prayed, by way of counterclaim, that the Nena be ordered to pay attorney’s fees and moral damages.

RTC RULING

The RTC ruled in favor of BJDC on the ground that the plaintiff did not present an eyewitness account of the death of
their decedent. On the contrary, the flagman of defendant was present when the accident occurred which was
caused by the decedent having overtaken a motorcycle ahead of [him] and on swerving, to avoid the barricade, hit
it, instead, breaking the lighted electric bulb on top of the barricade, resulting in the fall of the decedent about 18
paces from where his motorcycle fell on the reblocked pavement; the police investigator, policeman Corporal,
confirmed the tale of the flagman, aside from confirming the presence of the warning devices placed not only on the
premises but at places calculated to warn motorists of the ongoing reblocking project.

CA RULING

However, the RTC ruling was reversed was CA upon appeal.

The CA ruled that the following elements for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur were present, namely:
(1) the accident was of such character as to warrant an inference that it would not have happened except for the
defendant's negligence; (2) the accident must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive
management or control of the person charged with the negligence complained of; and (3) the accident must not
have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured.

The appellate court regarded as self–serving the testimony of Eduardo Zamora, an employee of the company who
testified that there was an electric bulb placed on top of the barricade on the area of the accident. It held that
Zamora’s statement was negated by the statements of Ernesto Alto and Asuncion Sandia to the effect that they had
passed by the area immediately before the accident and had seen the road to be dark and lit only by a gas lamp. It
noted that SPO1 Corporal, the police investigator, had noticed the presence of lighted electric bulbs in the area, but
the same had been installed on the other side of the street opposite the barricade.

Thus, the placing of road signs and streamers alone did not prove that the electric bulbs were in fact switched on at
the time of the accident as to sufficiently light up the newly re–blocked portion of the highway. BJDC filed a motion
for reconsideration, but the CA denied such motion.

ISSUE: Whose evidence was preponderant in establishing the negligence which proximately caused the death of
Balbino?

HELD: The court grants this petition for review and reverses and set aside the CA decision.

Section 1, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court mandates that in civil cases, the party having the burden of proof
must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence
on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.
Generally, the party who denies has no burden to prove. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff if the
defendant denies the factual allegations of the complaint in the manner required by the Rules of Court,
but it may rest on the defendant if he admits expressly or impliedly the essential allegations but raises
affirmative defense or defenses, which if proved, will exculpate him from liability.

Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence as a whole adduced by one side is superior to that of the
other. It refers to the weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to
be synonymous with the term “greater weight of evidence” or “greater weight of the credible evidence.” However,
the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defendant’s.

The Lanuzo heirs, the parties carrying the burden of proof, did not establish by preponderance of evidence that the
negligence on the part of the company was the proximate cause of the fatal accident of Balbino.

The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows: Did
the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an
ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.

Case at bar:

(1) The Lanuzo heirs argued that there was a total omission on the part of the company to place illuminated warning
signs on the site of the project, especially during night time, to warn motorists. They claim that the omission was the
proximate cause of the death of Balbino.

In this appeal, however, they contend that the negligence of the company consisted in its omission to put up
adequate lighting and the required signs to warn motorists of the project, abandoning their previous argument of a
total omission to illuminate the project site.

During the trial, the Lanuzo heirs attempted to prove inadequacy of illumination instead of the total omission of
illumination. They presented witnesses who were not consistent on their recollections of the significant detail of the
illumination of the site.

In contrast, BJDC credibly refuted the allegation of inadequate illumination. Zamora, its flagman in the project,
rendered an eyewitness account of the accident by stating that the site had been illuminated by light bulbs and gas
lamps, and that Balbino had been in the process of overtaking another motorcycle rider at a fast speed when he hit
the barricade. On his part, SPO1 Corporal recalled that there were light bulbs on the other side of the barricade; and
that the light bulb on the lane where the accident had occurred was broken because it had been hit by the victim’s
motorcycle. Witnesses Gerry Alejo and Engr. Victorino del Socorro remembered that light bulbs and gas lamps had
been installed in the area of the project.

(2) BJDC presented as its documentary evidence the investigation of SPO1 Corporal, the relevant portions of which
indicated the finding of the police investigator on the presence of illumination at the project site. Additionally, BJDC
submitted the application for lighting permit covering the project site to prove the fact of installation of the electric
light bulbs in the project site.

Thus, the RTC properly gave more weight to the testimonies of Zamora and SPO1 Corporal than to those of the
witnesses for the Lanuzo heirs. There was justification for doing so, because the greater probability pertained to the
former. Moreover, the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of their testimonies is preferred
to that of the appellate court’s because of the former’s unique first– hand opportunity to observe the witnesses and
their demeanor as such. The Court observes, too, that SPO1 Corporal, a veteran police officer detailed for more than
17 years at the Pili Police Station, enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duties.

(3) The CA unreasonably branded the testimonies of Zamora and SPO1 Corporal as “self–serving.” But court
declarations are not self–serving considering that the adverse party is accorded the opportunity to test the veracity of
the declarations by cross– examination and other methods. There is no question that Zamora and SPO1 Corporal
were thoroughly cross–examined by the counsel for the Lanuzo heirs. Their recollections remained unchallenged by
superior contrary evidence from the Lanuzo heirs.

(4) The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur had no application. Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase that literally means “the
thing or the transaction speaks for itself.” It is a maxim for the rule that the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken
with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make out a
plaintiff’s prima facie case, and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation.

For the doctrine to apply, the following requirements must be shown to exist, namely:
(a) the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence;
(b) it is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants; and
(c) the possibility of contributing conduct that would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated.

Based on the evidence adduced by the Lanuzo heirs, negligence cannot be fairly ascribed to the company considering
that it has shown its installation of the necessary warning signs and lights in the project site. In that context, the
fatal accident was not caused by any instrumentality within the exclusive control of the company. In contrast, Balbino
had the exclusive control of how he operated and managed his motorcycle. The records disclose that he overtook
another motorcycle rider at a fast speed. Moreover, by the time of the accident, the project had been going on for
more than a month. Balbino, who had passed there on a daily basis in going to and from his residence and the
school where he then worked as the principal, was thus very familiar with the risks at the project site. Nor could the
Lanuzo heirs justly posit that the illumination was not adequate, for it cannot be denied that Balbino’s motorcycle
was equipped with headlights. Balbino was also not wearing a helmet during such time.