Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co.
, INC vs Court of Appeals and Spouses
Antonio Esteban and Gloria Esteban
GR NO. L – 57079 September 29, 1989
Doctrine:
A person claiming damages for the negligence of another has the burden of proving the
existence of such fault or negligence causative thereof. The facts constitutive of
negligence must be affirmatively established by competent evidence. Whosoever relies
on negligence for his cause of action has the burden in the first instance of proving the
existence of the same if contested, otherwise his action must fail.
Facts:
In an evening while driving his jeep, Antonio Esteban failed to notice the open trench
which was left uncovered because of the creeping darkness and lack of any warning
lights or signs. Their jeep ran over a mound of earth and fell into an open trench, an
excavation allegedly undertaken by PLDT for the installation of its underground conduit
system. As a result of the accident, spouses Esteban allegedly sustained injuries and
the windshield of the jeep was shattered. They filed for an action for damages against
PLDT for the injuries they sustained however the PLDT denied liability because the
injuries sustained by respondents where the results of their own negligence and that the
entity which should be held responsible, if at all is the L.R. Barte and Company, an
independent contractor which undertook the construction of the manhole and the
conduit system. PLDT file a third-party complaint against Barte alleging that, the terms
of their agreement, PLDT should in no manner be answerable for any accident or
injuries arising from the negligence or carelessness of Barte or any of its employees.
In an answer, Barte claimed that it was not aware nor was it notified of the accident
involving respondent spouses and that it had complied with the terms of its contract
with PLDT by installing the necessary and appropriate standards signs in the vicinity of
the work site, with barricades at the both ends of the excavation and with red lights at
night along the excavated area to warn the traveling public of the presence
excavations.
The Trial court ruled in favor of the spouses Esteban. Cost against the PLDT, the CA
reverse the decision of the lower court and and dismissing the complaint of respondent
spouse. It held that the respondent Esteban were negligent and consequently absolved
petitioner PLDT from the claim of damages.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is negligence on the part of Antonio Esteban.
HELD:
Yes, the accident occurs due to lack of negligence of respondent Antonio Esteban and
was not imputable to negligent omission on the part of the Petitioner PLDT.
The findings clearly show that the negligence of respondent Antonio Esteban was not
only contributory to his injuries and those of his wife but goes to the very cause of the
occurrence of the accident, as one of its determining factors, and thereby precludes
their right to recover damages. The presence of warning signs could not have
completely prevented the accident; the only purpose of said signs was to inform and
warn the public of the presence of excavations on the site. The private respondents
already knew of the presence of said excavations. It was not the lack of knowledge of
these excavations which caused the jeep of respondents to fall into the excavation but
the unexplained sudden swerving of the jeep from the inside lane towards the accident
mound. As opined in some quarters, the omission to perform a duty, such as the placing
of warning signs on the site of the excavation, constitutes the proximate cause only
when the doing of the said omitted act would have prevented the injury. It is basic that
private respondents cannot charge PLDT for their injuries where their own failure to
exercise due and reasonable care was the cause thereof. It is both a societal norm and
necessity that one should exercise a reasonable degree of caution for his own
protection. Furthermore, respondent Antonio Esteban had the last clear chance or
opportunity to avoid the accident, notwithstanding the negligence he imputes to
petitioner PLDT. As a resident of Lacson Street, he passed on that street almost
everyday and had knowledge of the presence and location of the excavations there. It
was his negligence that exposed him and his wife to danger, hence he is solely
responsible for the consequences of his imprudence.
