G.R. No.

115024 February 7, 1996

MA. LOURDES VALENZUELA, petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, RICHARD LI and ALEXANDER COMMERCIAL, INC., respondents.

G.R. No. 117944 February 7, 1996

RICHARD LI, petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and LOURDES VALENZUELA, respondents.

FACTS:
These petitions for review on certiorari stem from an action to recover damages by petitioner Lourdes
Valenzuela in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for injuries sustained by her in a vehicular accident
in the early morning of June 24, 1990.

This is an action to recover damages based on quasi-delict, for serious physical injuries sustained in a
vehicular accident.

June 24, 1990, at 2 am: While driving from her restaurant at Araneta Avenue towards the direction of
Manila, Ma. Lourdes Valenzuela together with Cecilia Ramon, her companion, noticed that she had a flat
tire so she parked along the sidewalk about 1 1/2 feet away from the highway lane, place her emergency
lights and asked for help. She was standin at the right rear view of the road while pointing her tools to the
man who will help her fixed the tires, she was suddenly hit by another Mitsubishi Lancer driven by Richard
Li who was intoxicated with alcohol and she slammed across his windshield and fell to the ground and
suffered grave and serious injuries. She was brought to UERM where she stayed for 20 days and her leg
was amputated and was replaced with an artificial leg. Her expenses totalled to 147, 000 [120,000 PHP
(confinement) + 27, 000 (artificial leg)]

The RTC decided that Richard Li was guilty of gross negligence and liable for damages under Article 2176
of the Civil Code. Alexander Commercial, Inc., Li’s employer was impleaded as jointly and severally liable
for damages pursuant to Article 2180. The amounts of damages are: P41,840 actual damages, P37,500
unrealized profits because of the stoppage of plaintiffs Bistro La Conga restaurant 3 weeks after the
accident on June 24, 1990, P20,000 a month as unrealized profits of Bistro La Conga restaurant, from
August, 1990 until the date of this judgment, P30,000.00, a month, for unrealized profits in 2 Beauty
salons, P1,000,000 in moral damages, P50,000, as exemplary damages, P60,000, as reasonable attorney’s
fees and costs.

The Court of Appeals sought that there was ample evidence that the car was parked at the side but
absolved Li's employer and concluded that Li’s testimonies that he drives 55 kph is self serving and
uncorroborated and uphelds the testimony of Rogelio Rodriguez, the owner-operator of an establishment
located just across the scene of the accident that Valenzuela’s car parked parallel and very near the
sidewalk and Li was driving on a very fast speed and there was only a drizzle.

ISSUE:
1. W/N Valenzuela was guilty of contributory negligence
2. W/N Alexander Commercial, Inc. as Li's employer should be held liable
3. W/N the awarding of damages is proper.

HELD: CA decision modified and reinstating the RTC decision.

1. NO. Contributory negligence is a conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause
to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his
own protection the doctrine of “emergency rule” likewise states that: an individual who suddenly finds
himself in a situation of danger and is required to act without much time to consider the best means that
may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake what
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a better solution, unless the emergency was brought
by his own negligence.

She is not expected to run the entire boulevard in search for a parking zone or turn on a dark Street or
alley where she would likely find no one to help her. She stopped at a lighted place where there were
people, to verify whether she had a flat tire and to solicit help if needed and that she parked along the
sidewalk, about 1½ feet away, behind a Toyota Corona Car.

2. YES. Not the principle of respondeat superior, which holds the master liable for acts of the servant
(must be in the course of business), but that of pater familias, in which the liability ultimately falls upon
the employer, for his failure to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and
supervision of his employees. Ordinarily, evidence demonstrating that the employer has exercised diligent
supervision of its employee during the performance of the latter‘s assigned tasks would be enough to
relieve him of the liability imposed by Article 2180 in relation to Article 2176 of the Civil Code. The situation
is of a different character, involving a practice utilized by large companies with either their employees of
managerial rank or their representatives.

3. YES. As the amount of moral damages are subject to this Court’s discretion, the amount of
P1,000,000.00 granted by the trial court is in greater accord with the extent and nature of the injury which
are physical and psychological - suffered by Valenzuela as a result of Li’s grossly negligent driving of his
Mitsubishi Lancer in the early morning hours of the accident. The damage done to her would not only be
permanent and lasting, it would also be permanently changing and adjusting to the physiologic changes
which her body would normally undergo through the years. The replacements, changes, and adjustments
will require corresponding adjustments on her physical and occupational therapy. All of these
adjustments, it has been documented, are painful.