TISON (and Claudio Jabon) v Spouses POMASIN ● CA however disagreed and said that it was Jabon’s reckless driving
that it was Jabon’s reckless driving that caused the
August 24, 2011 | Perez, J. | Simultaneous Violations
Digester: Castro, Rachel Ann
SUMMARY: A vehicular accident happened involving Pomasin’s jeep and Tison’s
tractor-trailer driven by Jabon. The RTC found Laarni Pomasin negligent but the CA
disagreed. The SC reinstated RTC’s findings and concluded that Jabon was not
negligent and his alleged violation of the restrictions in his driver’s license was not the
proximate cause of the vehicular collision so they are not liable.
DOCTRINE: It must be proven that the violation of the traffic regulation was the
proximate or legal cause of the injury or that it substantially contributed thereto.
FACTS:
● A vehicular accident involving a jeep and a tractor-trailer happened along Maharlika
Highway, Brgy. Agos, Polangui, Albay on August 12, 1994.
● Two versions of the accident
o Gregorio Pomasin’s version (JEEPNEY driven by Laarni Pomasin)
- Gregorio Pomasin, Laarni’s father, was on board the jeep and seated on the
passenger’s side. He testified that while the jeep was passing through a curve
going downward, he saw a tractor-trailer coming from the opposite direction
and encroaching on the jeep’s lane. The jeep was hit by the tractor-trailer and it
was dragged further causing death and injuries to its passengers.
- NOTE that in the direct examination, Gregorio said they were going
downward BUT on rebuttal, he claimed they were going uphill.
o Jabon’s version (TRACTOR-TRAILER)
- Jabon recounted that while he was driving the tractor-trailer, he noticed a jeep
on the opposite lane falling off the shoulder of the road. Thereafter, it began
running in a zigzag manner and heading towards the direction of the truck. To
avoid collision, Jabon immediately swerved the tractor-trailer to the right
where it hit a tree and sacks of palay. Unfortunately, the jeep still hit the left
fender of the tractor-trailer before it was thrown a few meters away. The
tractor-trailer was likewise damaged.
● Alberto Tison, owner of the truck, immediately gave financial assistance to the
victims: 1,000 pesos each and 200k to Cynthia Pomasin, who executed an Affidavit
of Desistance.
● On November 14, 1994, respondents filed a complaint for damages before the
RTC alleging that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence,
imprudence and carelessness of the petitioners. Petitioners countered that it
was Laarni’s negligence which proximately caused the accident, that Cynthia had
already executed an Affidavit of Desistance and that this was only to harass them
and profit from Laarni’s recklessness. Petitioners subsequently filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint.
● RTC dismissed the complaint because of execution of Affidavit of Desistance and
because it was not the driver’s negligence which was the proximate cause of the
accident but Laarni’s. RTC considered Jabon’s testimony more credible because, as
a driver, his observation and attention was more focused on the road than that of
Gregorio who was merely a passenger.
accident. They relied heavily on Gregorio’s testimony that Jabon was driving
downward too fast and encroached upon their lane. Judging by the gravity of the
impact, the CA said that Jabon was speeding. CA also noted that the restriction in
Jabon’s driver’s license was violated, thus, giving rise to the presumption that he
was negligent at the time of the accident. Tison was likewise held liable for damages
for his failure to prove due diligence in supervising Jabon after he was hired as
driver of the truck. Finally, the appellate court disregarded the Affidavit of
Desistance executed by Cynthia because the latter had no written power of attorney
from respondents and that she was so confused at the time when she signed the
affidavit that she did not read its content. Petitioners’ MR denied.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The challenged Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Civil Case No.
943418 lodged before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 74, is
DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Who is the negligent party or the party at fault? – Laarni Pomasin
● According to the RTC (which the Court gives greater weight to): ‘the version of the
driver of defendant should ordinarily be more reliable than the version of a mere
passenger of Plaintiffs’ vehicle, simply because the attention of the passenger is not
as much concentrated on the driving as that of the driver, consequently the capacity
for observation of the latter of the latter on the matter testified to which is the
precise point of inquiry—the proximate cause of the accident—is more reasonably
reliable. Moreover, the passenger’s vision is not as good as that of the driver from
the vantage point of the driver’s seat especially in nighttime, thus rendering a
passenger’s opportunity for observation on the antecedent causes of the collision
lesser than that of the driver xxx this Court is more inclined to believe the story of
defendant’s driver Claudio Jabon that the jeep driven by Laarni Pomasin fell off the
shoulder of the curved road causing it to run thereafter in a zigzag manner and in
the process the two vehicles approaching each other from opposite directions at
highway speed came in contact with each other, the zigzagging jeep hitting the left
fender of the truck all the way to the fuel tank, the violent impact resulting in the
lighter vehicle, the jeep, being thrown away due to the disparate size of the truck.’
● General rule: Between the testimony of the driver and the passenger, the driver’s
testimony is more credible. BUT only when the two are similarly circumstanced.
However, the factual settings of the event must certainly be considered.
● The RTC, aside from considering the alleged vantage point of Jabon to observe the
incident, also considered Gregorio’s admission that the jeep was running on the
‘curving and downward portion of the highway’. According to the SC’s perusal of
the stenographic notes, the TRUCK was actually going uphill at a speed of 35 to
40 kph when the jeep went zigzagging on the opposite lane (and it was still bright
out and there was no rain and that the jeep was loaded and also had top-load) and
the JEEP was going downhill as admitted by Gregorio. This showed that the
testimony of Jabon was straightforward and consistent while Gregorio’s was not.
● Although it could be argued that Jabon should have swerved to the right to avoid
the jeepney, accidents happen in an instant leaving Jabon no chance to maneuver a
vehicle the size of his uphill to avoid collision with a jeep goingd downhill quickly.

Whether Jabon’s violation of restrictions on his driver’s license made him liable -
NO
● At the time of the incident, Jabon was prohibited from driving the truck due to the
restriction imposed on his driver’s license, i.e., restriction code 2 and 3. As a matter
of fact, Jabon even asked the Land Transportation Office to reinstate his articulated
license containing restriction code 8 which would allow him to drive a tractor-
trailer. However, a causal connection must exist between the injury received and
the violation of the traffic regulation (Sanitary Steam v CA). It must be proven that
the violation of the traffic regulation was the proximate or legal cause of the injury
or that it substantially contributed thereto. Negligence, consisting in whole or in
part, of violation of law, like any other negligence, is without legal consequence
unless it is a contributing cause of the injury. Negligence per se, arising from
violation of traffic regulation, is not sufficient to establish liability for damages
(Anonuevo v CA).
● Although ARTICLE 2185 says that a legal presumption of negligence arises if, at
the time of the mishap, the person was violating a traffic regulation, no causal
connection was established between Jabon’s violation and the vehicular collision.
Jabon was also sufficiently able to explain that the LTO merely erred in not
including restriction code 8 in his license.

Whether the Affidavit of Desistance should exonerate petitioners from liability –

moot because it has been proven that Jabon was not negligent
● The subject affidavit does not deserve a second look more so that it appears that
Cynthia was not armed with a special power of attorney to enter into a settlement
with petitioners.

NOTES:
● Gregorio was injured and brought to the Albay Provincial Hospital in Legaspi City.
His daughter, Andrea Pomasin Pagunsan, sister Narcisa Pomasin Roncales and
Abraham Dionisio Perol died on the spot. His other daughter Laarni, the jeep
driver, and granddaughter Annie Jane Pomasin Pagunsan expired at the hospital.
His wife, Consorcia Pomasin, another granddaughter Dianne Pomasin Pagunsan,
Ricky Ponce, Vicente Pomasin, Gina Sesista, Reynaldo Sesista, Antonio Sesista and
Sonia Perol sustained injuries. On the other hand, Jabon and one of the passengers
in the tractor-trailer were injured.
● Word used by the court was jitney not jeep.