Macalinao vs. Ong and Sebastian, G.R. No.

146635Facts:On April 25, 1992, Sebastian instructed Macalinao (utility man), Ong(the driver) and two truck helpers to deliver a heavy piece of machinery to Sebastians manufacturing plant in Angat, Bulacan. At around 11:20 PM inthe morning, the vehicle driven by Ong bumped the front portion of aprivate jeepney along Caypombo, Sta. Maria, Bulacan. Among thepassengers of the truck, Macalinao incurred the most serious injuries. Macalinaos bod y was paralyzed from the neck down and his foot wasamputated. He also suffered bed sores and infection. Not long after, hedied. Before he died, Macalinao was able to file an action for damagesagainst both Ong and Sebastian before the RTC of Quezon City Branch 81. After his death, Macalinao was substituted by his parents in the action. After trial in the civil action, The RTC held that Ong drove the Izuzutruck in a reckless and imprudent manner which has caused the accident.The respondents claimed that Ong was driving cautiously and prudently,however there is no evidence presented to substantiate the claim. Thecourt declared that Ong is negligent while Sebastian failed to exercise thediligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of Ong. Both were jointly liable to pay actual, exemplary, and civil indemnity for Macalinaos death. The case was elevated in the Court of Appeals, however the courtreversed the findings of the RTC for lack of evidence to support the verdictof negligence against Ong.Issue:Whether or not, the C.A. erred in their ruling that there is a lack of evidenceto impute Ong for being negligent.Ruling:The petition is meritorious.The issue of the case rests upon the sufficiency of evidence presented to prove Ongs negligence. Given the contradictory decisions of the trial and appellate court, the Supreme Court finds the need to examinethe facts so as to ascertain which court rendered correct judgment. Basis for C.A.s deci sion:

The evidence to impute Ong for being negligent is scant.

The pictures of the collision afford no basis to conclude that it was thefault of the driver, or that he is driving recklessly.

The police report contains no findings as to the road conditions,estimates of the relative speed of the vehicles, or their exact position atthe time of the accident. Even so, the entries of the police blotter shouldnot be given significance as conclusive proof.

There were no eyewitness presented nor affidavits on what actuallyhappened.However, according to the Supreme Court, the evidence on record sufficiently establishes Ongs negligence by invoking the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur .1.) The photographs of the accident which the appellate court brushedaside as insignificant deserve substantial cogitation.In Jose vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court upheld the trial courts reliance on photographs of the accident as opposed to a partys obviously biased testimony.In People vs. Vasquez, cases of murder or rape, the Court ruled thatin case when physical evidence on record contradicts with the testimonialevidences of the prosecution witnesses, physical evidence should prevail. Also cited in the decision: According to American courts, photographs are admissible in evidence in motor vehicle accident cases when they appear to have been accurately taken and are proved to be a faithful and clear representation of the subject, which cannot itself be produced,and are of such nature as to throw light upon a disputed point. Before a photograph may be admitted in evidence, however, its accuracy or correctness must be proved, and it must be authenticated or verified first