SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 220667. 22066 7. January January 27, 2016.] 2016 .] OLIV OLIVIA IA B. PASCUAL assis assisted ted by b y FLORANTE FLORANTE FLORANTE C. PASCUAL PASCUAL , petitioner , vs . FORD MOTOR COMPANY PHILIPPINES, INC. and FORD GROUP PHILIPPINES, INC., INC. respondents . NOTICE Sirs/Mesdames : Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 2 7 January 2016 which reads reads as follows fo llows :
"G.R. No. 220667 (OLIVIA B. PASCUAL assisted by FLORANTE C. PASCUAL, Petitioner v. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY PHILIPPINES, INC. and FORD GROUP PHILIPPI NES, INC., Respondents ) . THE CASE This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the March 16, 2015 decision 1 and September 18, 2015 resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in in CA-G.R. CV No. 102292, penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio, with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Romeo F. Barza, concurring. In November 30, 2006, the petitioner Olivia Pascual (Pascual) bought bought a secondhand hand Ford E-150 E -150 vehicle vehicle (vehicle) . 3 On April 7, 2008, at around 1:30 a.m., Pascual's driver was driving the vehicle at moderate speed along the National Highway at Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, when the vehicle's right axle broke causing its wheel to be detached. Pascual and the other passengers suffered s uffered physical injuries injuries and were rushed to t o a hospital. 4 Pascual demanded that respondents Ford Motor Company Philippines, Inc. (FMCI) and Ford Group Philippines, Inc. (FGPI) pay her actual and moral damages resulting from the incident. 5 The FMCI is a Ford manufacturer, while the FGPI is a Ford distributor distrib utor in the Philippines. Philippines. 6 The FMCI FMCI and the FGPI denied their liability to Pascual. P ascual. 7 Pascual led a complaint for damages based on quasi-delict against the FGPI and the FMCP with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) . 8 Pascual claims that the FMCI and the FGPI are strictly st rictly liable for the t he defective vehicle. vehicle. AaCTcI
In their answer, the FMCI and the FGPI assert that Pascual cannot claim the manufacturer's warranty or warranty against hidden defects because: (1) the vehicle was bought at second hand; and (2) (2 ) the vehicle's warranty to the purchaser had expired two years after the vehicle was bought from an authorized Ford dealer on November 15, 2000. 9 The FMCI FMCI and the FGPI presented p resented their sole so le expert witness who w ho investigated and examined the vehicle and testied that the rear leaf spring of the vehicle had been repaired and altered by non-Ford authorized dealer/s to enable it to carry a heavy load beyond the vehicle's weight capacity. The heavy load stress was absorbed by the axle CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016
cdasiaonline.com
shock which caused it to break. 10 The RTC Ruling 11
The RTC held the FMCI and the FGPI liable and ordered them to solidarily pay Pascual moral damages, attorney's fees, exemplary damages, and costs of suit. 12 The RTC held that the FMCI and the FGPI were negligent because Pascual and her co-passengers' physical injuries resulted from the factory defect of the vehicle's right rear axle. 13 The RTC did not give credence to the testimony of the FMCI's and the FGPI's expert witness because it was not corroborated; hence, his statements were mere allegations and self-serving evidence. 14 The RTC also explained that notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle is secondhand, the FMCI and the FGPI cannot disclaim their liability because the vehicle was purchased from them. The FMCI and the FGPI failed to protect Pascual who was the end-user of the vehicle at the time of the incident. 15 The FMCI and the FGPI appealed the RTC decision. The CA Ruling 16
The CA reversed the RTC decision and held that the FMCI and the FGPI are not liable for the injuries and damages sustained by Pascual and her co-passengers. The CA also ordered Pascual to pay the FMCI and the FGPI attorney's fees. 17 The CA explained that Pascual cannot attribute negligence to the FMCI and the FGPI because the vehicle had undergone alterations which affected its performance and in violation of the vehicle's maximum capacity. It was also possible that the previous owner had altered the vehicle. 18 The CA also explained that even assuming that the FMCI and the FGPI were negligent, the doctrine of proximate cause releases them from liability. 19 The alteration made to the vehicle's leaf springs is an intervening cause from the time of its manufacture until its transfer to Pascual's possession. 20 The CA held that Pascual was negligent because she failed to check the secondhand vehicle for any defect before she purchased the vehicle. Hence, Pascual's negligence is the proximate cause of their accident. 21 Pascual filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA denied. 22 THE PETITION Pascual questions the CA decision and resolution through the present p etition. Pascual argues that the FMCI and the FGPI failed to rebut the prima facie presumption of negligence against them. 23 The testimony of the FMCI and the FGPI's expert witness is mere allegation and self serving-evidence. 24 Pascual also argues that her driver testied that the vehicle was brought to Ford Global City for change oil and brake lining work, contrary to the FMCI and the FGPI's claim that the vehicle was not brought to a Ford technician for repair. 25 Pascual asserts that the strict liability in torts applies against the FMCI and the FGPI who are liable, notwithstanding that: (a) the vehicle is second-hand; (b) the vehicle has been altered or modied by non-Ford technicians; (c) Pascual or the vehicle's previous owner failed to maintain the vehicle in accordance with the preventive maintenance procedure and schedule; (d) the vehicle's warranty had already lapsed; CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016
cdasiaonline.com
and (e) the vehicle was subjected to misuse, abuse, unauthorized alteration or faulty repair by non-Ford technicians. 26 The issues in the present petition are: (1) whether or not the FMCI and the FGPI are liable to Pascual for quasi-delict; and (2) whether or not the strict liability in torts applies against the FMCI and the FGPI. OUR RULING We deny deny the petition outright for lack of merit. The CA award of attorney's fees, however, should be deleted. FMCI and FGPI are not liable Pascual claims the FMCI and the FGPI's liability is based on quasi-delict. Jurisprudence provides that in order to sustain a claim based on quasi-delict, the following requisites 27 must concur: (1) damage to plaintiff; (2) negligence, by act or omission, of which defendant, or some person for whose acts he must respond was guilty; and (3) connection of cause and effect between such negligence and damage. The CA correctly held that Pascual cannot attribute negligence to the FMCI and the FGPI. The testimony of their expert witness was corroborated by other documentary evidence, such as the technical report and photographs of the vehicle, to prove that the vehicle had undergone alterations which affected its performance, including the safety to passengers. The expert witness explained that the non-authorized Ford technicians' alteration of the rear axle to carry a heavier load exceeded the vehicle's maximum capacity and the heavy load caused the axle to break. 28 Pascual, on the other hand, did not refute the expert witness' testimony on the alterations made. 29 EcTCAD
Pascual cannot also claim that Ford repaired her vehicle since she stated that the vehicle was brought to Ford for change oil and brake lining jobs only 30 and not for the purpose of repair. Pascual's claim that the FMCI and the FGPI are presumed negligent has no basis in law or in jurisprudence. It is Pascual who has the burden to prove the FMCI's and the FGPI's negligence. 31 The case of Nutrimix Feeds Corporation v. CA 32 provides that the following must be present before a manufacturer or seller may be held liable for any damage caused by the product: first , proof that the product in question was defective;
defect must must be be present present upon upon the the delivery delivery or or manufacture manufacture of second , thedefect the the product; product or when the product left the seller's or manufacturer's control; or when the product was sold to the purchaser; and wit hout substantial subst ant ial third , the product must have reached the user or consumer without change in tthe he condition iitt was so sold ld.. (emphases supplied) Pascual did not present proof that the vehicle was defective upon its manufacture. The alteration in the vehicle's rear axle after the vehicle was sold is a substantial change in the vehicle's condition. Hence, the FMCI, as manufacturer, and the FGPI, as seller/distributor, cannot be held liable for any damage caused by the vehicle's defect. The strict liability in torts is not applicable. CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016
cdasiaonline.com
We also nd that the strict liability in torts is not applicable against the FMCI and the FGPI. Pascual cites the California Supreme Court Case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. 33 to support her claim on the applicability of strict liability in torts. According to Greenman : A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being. . . . The purpose of such liability is to insure that the costs of injuries resulting fromdefective defective products products are borne by the the manufacturers man ufa cturers that that put putsuch su chproducts productson the market rather than by the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves. 34 . . . Implicit in the machine's presence on the market, however, was a representation that it would safely do the jobs for which it was built. built 35 (emphases supplied)
Jurisprudence provides that foreign decisions, such as the Greenman case, are not controlling in this jurisdiction but are, at best, only persuasive. 36 The Greenman case, however, is not even persuasive for purposes of the present case because its facts are different and cannot apply squarely to the present case. Greenman involved a purchaser who bought a defective power tool rst hand from a retailer. 37 On the other hand, the present case involves a second-hand vehicle which was bought from an unidentified person.
Even assuming that the Greenman case is applicable, the FMCI and the FGPI are not liable because their representation as to the vehicle's weight capacity is limited. The vehicle will safely do the job for which it was built subject to the vehicle's weight capacity. The alteration of the vehicle's rear axle to carry more weight beyond the vehicle's capacity is outside the FMCI's and the FGPI's representation of its product. Award of atto rney's fees to the FMCI and the FGPI The CA failed to justify the award of attorney's fees to the FMCI and the FGPI. Attorney's fees as part of damages are awarded only in the instances specied in Article 2208 38 of the Civil Code. As such, it is necessary for the court to make ndings of fact and law that would bring the case within the ambit of the enumerated instances to justify the grant of such award, and in all cases it must be reasonable. 39 The CA failed to state any factual, legal, or equitable justication for the award of attorney's fees in favor of the FMCI and the FGPI. We also do not nd any of the exceptions in Article 2208 applicable to the present case. WHEREFORE, WHEREFORE premises considered, we DE DENY NY the petition outright as we find no error in the assailed CA decision and resolution, except as to the award of attorney's fees. SO ORDERED." Very truly yours, (SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PE RFECTO Division Clerk of Court Footnotes
1. Rollo , pp. 42-54. CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016
cdasiaonline.com
2. Id. at 56-57. 3. Id. at 42. 4. Id. at 42-43. 5. Id. at 43-45. 6. Id. at 58. 7. Id. at 45-46. 8. Civil Case No. II-4703. RTC Branch 8, Aparri, Cagayan. 9. Rollo , pp. 60-61. 10. Id. at 46. 11. Dated December 9, 2013. Rollo , pp. 58-80. 12. Id. at 80. 13. Id. at 73-76. 14. Id. at 74-75. 15. Id. at 75. 16. Dated March 16, 2015. Rollo , pp. 42-54. 17. Id. at 53. 18. Id. at 49. 19. Id. 20. Id. at 50. 21. Id. 22. Id. at 57-58. 23. Id. at 24. 24. Id. 25. Id. at 25. 26. Id. at 27-28. 27. Philippine National Railways v. Brunty, et al. , G.R. No. 169891, November 2, 2006, 506 SCRA 685, 698. 28. Rollo , p. 46. 29. Id. at 51. 30. Id. at 25. 31. Huang v. Phil. Hoteliers, Inc., et al. , G.R. No. 180440, December 5, 2012, 687 SCRA 162, 193. 32. G.R. No. 152219, October 25, 2004, 441 SCRA 357, 370. CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016
cdasiaonline.com
33. 59 Cal. 2d 57 (1963). 34. Id. at 62. 35. Id. at 64. 36. Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. , G.R. No. 167614, March 23, 2009, 582 SCRA 254, 280. 37. Supra note 33, at 59. 38. Article Article 2208. 2208 In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except: (1) When exemplary damages are awarded; (2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest; (3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff; (4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff; (5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable claim; (6) In actions for legal support; (7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers; (8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws; (9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime; (10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded; (11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered. In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable. 39. Philippine National Construction Corporation v. APAC Marketing Corporation , G.R. No. 190957, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 441, 450.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016
cdasiaonline.com
