Title: Linda Cacho, Minors Sarah Jane, Jacqueline, Fire Rina And Mark Louise All Surnamed

Cacho, All Represented By Their Mother And Guardian Ad Litem Linda Cacho V. Gerardo
Manahan, Dagupan Bus Co., Inc., And Renato De Vera Doing Business Under The Name R. M.
De Vera Construction
G.R. No. 203081 Date: January 17, 2018 Ponente: Martires, J.
Subject: CivRev
Nature of the Action:
 This is a petition for review under Rule 45 assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals in
ruling in favor of Gerardo Manahan, pinning the cause of a vehicular mishap on Bismark
Cacho who died as a result of said mishap. The petitioners argue that it was Gerardo
Manahan who was negligent as he was driving in a high speed while approaching the
Embarcadero Bridge in Pangasinan. Manahan and Dagupan argued that the bus was at full
stop when the mishap occurred, and that it was the negligent act of De Vera Construction
in leaving the rocks at the shoulder of the bridge which was the proximate cause of the
accident. De Vera Construction argued that it was safe as evidenced by its certificate of
compliance issued by the municipal engineer
 The RTC ruled that it was Manahan who was negligently driving at high speed. The CA
reversed the ruling of the RTC, ruling that the bus was at full stop.
Issues:
Whether or not Manahan was negligent in driving the bus.
Ruling:

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that Manahan was negligent in driving the bus.

The Court used the test of negligence as cited in Picart vs. Smith, thus; “Did the defendant in
doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent
person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.”

The Court cited evidentiary facts which disproved Manahan and Dagupan’s claim that the bus
was at full stop. The Court found out that one of its passengers said that Manahan was driving
at high speed while approaching the bridge. Also, the Court further pinned the negligence on
Manahan because at the time of the accident, he was found to be violating a traffic regulation
because he was duty bound to reduce speed while approaching the bridge. As a matter of fact,
the Court even said that he should have stopped.

The Court further ruled that Dagupan is also liable for Manahan’s negligence because it was
the employer of Manahan and it failed to disprove its liability by proving that it exercised
diligence in the selection and supervision of Manahan. The Court found that Dagupan allowed
Manahan to drive in the wee hours of the morning even though he was restricted to drive at
night. Also, it allowed Manahan to drive even though he had difficulty in braking.