Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 83 views

    Phoenix Construction Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Akira Jane Latigo
    Leonardo Dionisio was in a car accident after having drinks at a party. He collided with a dump truck owned by Phoenix Construction that was parked on the side of the road without lights or reflectors. Dionisio sued Phoenix for damages, claiming their negligence caused the accident. Phoenix argued Dionisio's drinking and speed caused the accident. Both lower courts found Phoenix negligent. The Supreme Court agreed, finding Phoenix's negligence in parking without lights was the proximate cause of the accident, though Dionisio's drinking was also a contributing factor. The Court allocated damages at a 20-80 ratio between Dionisio and Phoenix respectively.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Phoenix Construction Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Akira Jane Latigo
    83 views1 page
    Leonardo Dionisio was in a car accident after having drinks at a party. He collided with a dump truck owned by Phoenix Construction that was parked on the side of the road without lights or reflectors. Dionisio sued Phoenix for damages, claiming their negligence caused the accident. Phoenix argued Dionisio's drinking and speed caused the accident. Both lower courts found Phoenix negligent. The Supreme Court agreed, finding Phoenix's negligence in parking without lights was the proximate cause of the accident, though Dionisio's drinking was also a contributing factor. The Court allocated damages at a 20-80 ratio between Dionisio and Phoenix respectively.

    Original Description:

    torts and damages

    Original Title

    Phoenix Construction vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Leonardo Dionisio was in a car accident after having drinks at a party. He collided with a dump truck owned by Phoenix Construction that was parked on the side of the road without lights or reflectors. Dionisio sued Phoenix for damages, claiming their negligence caused the accident. Phoenix argued Dionisio's drinking and speed caused the accident. Both lower courts found Phoenix negligent. The Supreme Court agreed, finding Phoenix's negligence in parking without lights was the proximate cause of the accident, though Dionisio's drinking was also a contributing factor. The Court allocated damages at a 20-80 ratio between Dionisio and Phoenix respectively.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    83 views1 page

    Phoenix Construction Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Akira Jane Latigo
    Leonardo Dionisio was in a car accident after having drinks at a party. He collided with a dump truck owned by Phoenix Construction that was parked on the side of the road without lights or reflectors. Dionisio sued Phoenix for damages, claiming their negligence caused the accident. Phoenix argued Dionisio's drinking and speed caused the accident. Both lower courts found Phoenix negligent. The Supreme Court agreed, finding Phoenix's negligence in parking without lights was the proximate cause of the accident, though Dionisio's drinking was also a contributing factor. The Court allocated damages at a 20-80 ratio between Dionisio and Phoenix respectively.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION, and ARMANDO U.

    CARBONEL vs THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE


    COURT and LEONARDO DIONISIO
    G.R. No. L-65295 March 10, 1987
    FACTS:
    Respondent Leonardo Dionisio was driving on his way home from a cocktail-and-dinner party, from which
    he had a shot or two of liquor. He had just crossed the intersection of General Lacuna and General
    Santos Streets at Bangkal, Makati when allegedly his car headlights suddenly failed.
    He switched his headlights on "bright" and saw a Ford dump truck looming some 2-1/2 meters away from
    his car. The dump truck, owned by and registered in the name of petitioner Phoenix Construction Inc.
    ("Phoenix"), was parked on the right hand side of General Lacuna Street, facing the oncoming traffic. It
    also did not have any lights nor any so-called "early warning" reflector devices.
    Dionisio claimed that he tried to avoid a collision by swerving his car to the left but it was too late and his
    car smashed into the dump truck. Due to the event therefore the herein private respondent filed an action
    for Damages on the grounds that the legal and proximate cause of his injuries was the negligent manner
    in which Phoenix had allowed its truck to be parked.
    Petitioners defense: that the proximate cause of Dionisio's injuries was his own recklessness in driving
    fast at the time of the accident, while under the influence of liquor, without his headlights on and without a
    curfew pass. Phoenix also sought to establish that it had exercised due rare in the selection and
    supervision of the dump truck driver.
    The petitioners Phoenix and Carbonel contend that if there was negligence in the manner in which the
    dump truck was parked, that negligence was merely a "passive and static condition" and that private
    respondent Dionisio's recklessness constituted an intervening, efficient cause determinative of the
    accident and the injuries he sustained.
    Trial court rendered judgment in favor of Dionisio and against Phoenix and Carbonel.
    Intermediate Appellate Court confirmed.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Phoenixs negligence is the proximate cause?

    HELD:
    YES.
    We agree with the Court of First Instance and the Intermediate Appellate Court that the legal and
    proximate cause of the accident and of Dionisio's injuries was the wrongful or negligent manner in
    which the dump truck was parked in other words, the negligence of petitioner Carbonel. That there was a
    reasonable relationship between petitioner Carbonel's negligence on the one hand and the accident and
    respondent's injuries on the other hand, is quite clear. Put in a slightly different manner, the collision of
    Dionisio's car with the dump truck was a natural and foreseeable consequence of the truck driver's
    negligence.
    The truck driver's negligence far from being a "passive and static condition" was rather an indispensable
    and efficient cause. The collision between the dump truck and the private respondent's car would in an
    probability not have occurred had the dump truck not been parked askew without any warning lights or
    reflector devices.
    We hold that private respondent Dionisio's negligence was "only contributory," that the "immediate and
    proximate cause" of the injury remained the truck driver's "lack of due care" and that consequently
    respondent Dionisio may recover damages though such damages are subject to mitigation by the courts
    (Article 2179, Civil Code of the Philippines).
    Turning to the award of damages and taking into account the comparative negligence of private
    respondent Dionisio on one hand and petitioners Carbonel and Phoenix upon the other hand, 17 we
    believe that the demands of substantial justice are satisfied by allocating most of the damages on a 20-80
    ratio.

    You might also like