PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO., INC., vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES

ANTONIO ESTEBAN and GLORIA ESTEBAN
G.R. No. L-57079 | September 29, 1989

FACTS: 1968, in Negros, Spouses Esteban were riding their jeep when they ran over an earth
mound and fell in an open trench on the road resulting to slight injuries to the husband and serious
injuries to the wife. The windshield of the jeep was also shattered due to the accident. Spouses
Esteban accused PLDT of negligence because of lack of warning signs placed near the manhole
dug resulting on the earth mound on the road causing injuries to the wife. PLDT contends the
injuries were the result of the negligence of the independent contractor the company hired (Barte)
and should be the one held liable and not the company. RTC ruled in favour of the spouses while
the CA under Justice Agrava as ponente reversed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE: Whether or not PLDT may be held liable for the injuries obtained by the Spouses Estaban.

HELD: No. The above findings clearly show that the negligence of respondent Antonio Esteban
was not only contributory to his injuries and those of his wife but goes to the very cause of the
occurrence of the accident, as one of its determining factors, and thereby precludes their right to
recover damages. The perils of the road were known to, hence appreciated and assumed by, private
respondents. By exercising reasonable care and prudence, respondent Antonio Esteban could have
avoided the injurious consequences of his act, even assuming arguendo that there was some alleged
negligence on the part of petitioner.

PLDT and Barte contends that the independent contractor placed signs on the road and that it was
the fault of Mr. Esteban because he did not diligently drive the jeepney. Mr. Esteban had quickly
swerved from the outer lane thereby hitting the earth mound. SC finds no error in the findings of
the respondent court in its original decision that the accident which befell private respondents was
due to the lack of diligence of respondent Antonio Esteban and was not imputable to negligent
omission on the part of petitioner PLDT. The findings clearly show that the negligence of
respondent Antonio Esteban was not only contributory to his injuries and those of his wife but
goes to the very cause of the occurrence of the accident, as one of its determining factors, and
thereby precludes their right to recover damages. The presence of warning signs could not have
completely prevented the accident; the only purpose of said signs was to inform and warn the
public of the presence of excavations on the site. The private respondents already knew of the
presence of said excavations. It was not the lack of knowledge of these excavations which
caused the jeep of respondents to fall into the excavation but the unexplained sudden
swerving of the jeep from the inside lane towards the accident mound.