Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 97 views

    Vergara VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    amado espejo
    A cargo truck owned by Vicente Vergara rammed into the store-residence of Amadeo Azarcon, causing damages of P53,024.22. The trial court found Vergara jointly liable and ordered payment of damages and fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The issue in this case is whether Vergara is guilty of quasi-delict. The Supreme Court held that Vergara was negligent, as the police report stated the truck crossed the center line and hit other vehicles before ramming the store. While the driver claimed the brakes did not work, defects are not considered fortuitous and the accident was preventable. Therefore, the elements of a quasi-delict

    Copyright:

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

    Vergara VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    amado espejo
    97 views1 page
    A cargo truck owned by Vicente Vergara rammed into the store-residence of Amadeo Azarcon, causing damages of P53,024.22. The trial court found Vergara jointly liable and ordered payment of damages and fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The issue in this case is whether Vergara is guilty of quasi-delict. The Supreme Court held that Vergara was negligent, as the police report stated the truck crossed the center line and hit other vehicles before ramming the store. While the driver claimed the brakes did not work, defects are not considered fortuitous and the accident was preventable. Therefore, the elements of a quasi-delict

    Original Title

    VERGARA 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?

    A cargo truck owned by Vicente Vergara rammed into the store-residence of Amadeo Azarcon, causing damages of P53,024.22. The trial court found Vergara jointly liable and ordered payment of damages and fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The issue in this case is whether Vergara is guilty of quasi-delict. The Supreme Court held that Vergara was negligent, as the police report stated the truck crossed the center line and hit other vehicles before ramming the store. While the driver claimed the brakes did not work, defects are not considered fortuitous and the accident was preventable. Therefore, the elements of a quasi-delict

    Copyright:

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

    Vergara VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    amado espejo
    A cargo truck owned by Vicente Vergara rammed into the store-residence of Amadeo Azarcon, causing damages of P53,024.22. The trial court found Vergara jointly liable and ordered payment of damages and fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The issue in this case is whether Vergara is guilty of quasi-delict. The Supreme Court held that Vergara was negligent, as the police report stated the truck crossed the center line and hit other vehicles before ramming the store. While the driver claimed the brakes did not work, defects are not considered fortuitous and the accident was preventable. Therefore, the elements of a quasi-delict

    Copyright:

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

    VERGARA VS CA

    FACTS:
    A vehicular accident occurred on August 5, 1979, when Martin Belmonte, while driving a cargo
    truck belonging to petitioner Vicente Vergara, rammed the store-residence of private respondent
    Amadeo Azarcon, causing damage assessed at P53,024.22. The trial court rendered decision in
    favor of private respondent, ordering the petitioner to pay, jointly and severally with Traveller’s
    Insurance and Surety Corporation, the following: (a) P53,024.22 as actual damages; (b)
    P10,000.00 as moral damages; (c) P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (d) the sum of
    P5,000.00 for attorney's fees and the costs. The insurance company was sentenced to pay to
    the petitioner the following: (a) P50,000.00 for third party liability under its comprehensive
    accident insurance policy; and (b) P3,000.00 for and as attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals
    affirmed the decision in toto; hence, this instant petition for certiorari.
    ISSUE:
    Whether the petitioner is guilty of quasi-delict.
    HELD:
    It was established by competent evidence that the requisites of a quasi-delict are present in the
    case at bar. These requisites are: (1) damages to the plaintiff; (2) negligence, by act or
    omission, of which defendant, or some person for whose acts he must respond, was guilty; and
    (3) the connection of cause and effect between such negligence and the damages. The fact of
    negligence may be deduced from the surrounding circumstances thereof. According to the
    police report, "the cargo truck was travelling on the right side of the road going to Manila and
    then it crossed to the center line and went to the left side of the highway; it then bumped a
    tricycle; and then another bicycle; and then said cargo truck rammed the store warehouse of the
    plaintiff." According to the driver of the cargo truck, he applied the brakes but the latter did not
    work due to mechanical defect. Contrary to the claim of the petitioner, a mishap caused by
    defective brakes cannot be considered as fortuitous in character. Certainly, the defects were
    curable and the accident preventable.

    You might also like