Guerrero v. Phil. Phoenix Surety &Insurance, Inc. G.R.No. 223178 09 December 2020 Carandang, J.

Guerrero v.  Phil. Phoenix Surety &Insurance, Inc.

G.R.No. 223178 09 December 2020

Carandang, J.:

First Division

Nature of the Action: This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution which denied the petitioner’s appeal and affirmed the RTC’s decision ordering the petitioner and his co-defendant to pay Phil. Phoenix Surety & Insurance, Inc.

Facts: 

Gaticales owned an Isuzu Sportivo vehicle was figured in a vehicular accident with Guerrerro’s Chervolet pick –up truck. At that time, the Chervolet was driven by Cordero. When the incident was reported to the nearest police station, a certain PO2 Jose Diestro (PO2 Diestro) was sent to the place of the accident to investigate and make a police report on his findings. It was found that Guerrero's Chevrolet overlapped the center line of the highway, encroaching the lane occupied by the Isuzu (which was moving in the opposite direction) and resulting in a head-on collision between the two vehicles. It was also noted that Cordero fled after the incident.

Then, Gaticales filed an own damage claim with Phoenix and declared his Isuzu as constructive loss. Consequently, he exceuted a release of claim in favor of Phoenix subrogating the latter of all his rights to cover on all claims as a consequence of the accident. Accordingly, filed a complaint for damages against Guerrero and Cordero. It averred that the accident could have been avoided if Cocrdero excercised due care in driving the Chervolet and if Guerero exercised the required diligence in supervising Cordero as Corderor’s employer. Thus, it sought to have them solidarily liable. On the other hand, Guerrero denied any vicarious liability from the vehicular accident because he exercised due diligence in the selection and supervisions of his employees. The RTC granted Phoenix’s claim and declared Guerrero and Cordero solidarily liable to Phoenix pursuant to the principle of res ipsa loquitor.

On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the RTC’s finding. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether the petitioner is solidarily liable with Cordero and be held liable following the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor.

Ruling:

This Court is now left to determine whether the pictures Phoenix presented during trial will suffice to prove Cordero's negligence under the principle of res ipsa loquitur.

The pictures presented by Phoenix are likewise inadmissible in evidence for Phoenix's its failure to prove its due execution and authenticity. As this Court held, "photographs, when presented in evidence, must be identified by the photographer as to its production and he must testify as to the circumstances under which they were produced."44 This requirement for admissibility was similarly stated in Section 1, Rule 11 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence when it required photographic evidence of events to be "identified, explained or authenticated by the person who made the recording or by some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof." While We have allowed witnesses (other than the person who took the photograph) to identify pictures presented in evidence, the said witness must be competent to identify the photograph as a faithful representation of the object portrayed.45 A competent witness must be able to "assure the court that they know or are familiar with the scenes or objects shown in the pictures and the photographs depict them correctly."46

 

Salaver is not competent to identify the pictures presented in evidence. Salaver was not at the scene of the crime. Therefore, he does not have personal knowledge of the scene or objects shown in the pictures. More importantly, the said pictures do not depict the vehicular accident — i.e., the position of the Isuzu and the Chevrolet along the National Highway at the time of the accident. The Chevrolet was not in any of the pictures presented by Phoenix. It cannot be presumed that (1) the Chevrolet was the instrumentality that caused the accident; (2) Gaticales was the only injured party; and (3) Gaticales was not guilty of any contributory negligence.

All told, Phoenix failed to discharge its burden of proving its case with preponderance of evidence.

Guerrero's prayer for P500,000.00 as moral damages, P200,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P150,000.00 as attorney's fees are denied for lack of any factual or legal basis. Guerrero failed to justify why he should be awarded the abovementioned monetary claims as the instant petition focused solely on the inadmissibility of the police certificate and pictures.