Lambert Vs CAstillon

NELEN LAMBERT v. HEIRS OF RAY CASTILLON, MARILOU T.
CASTILLON and
SERGIO
LABANG___________________________________________________________________
Facts: In the evening of January 13, 1991, Ray Castillon visited the house of his brother Joel
Castillon at Tambo, Iligan City and borrowed his motorcycle. He then invited his friend, Sergio
Labang, to roam around Iligan City. Ray drove the motorcycle with Sergio as the back rider. At
around past 10:00 p.m., after eating supper at Hona’s Restaurant and imbibing a bottle of beer, they
traversed the highway towards Tambo at a high speed. Upon reaching Brgy. Sto. Rosario, they
figured in an accident with a Tamaraw jeepney, owned by petitioner Nelen Lambert and driven by
Reynaldo Gamot, which was traveling on the same direction but made a sudden left turn. The
incident resulted inthe instantaneous death of Ray and injuries to Sergio. Respondents, the heirs of
Ray Castillon, thus filed an action for damages with prayer for preliminary attachment against the
petitioner Nelen Lambert. The complaint was subsequently amended to include the claim by Joel
Castillon for the damages caused to the motorcycle. On June 29, 1993, after a full-blown trial, the
court a quo rendered a decision in favor of the Castillon heirs but reduced Lambert’s liability by
20% in view of the contributory negligence of Ray. On the claim of Joel Castillon, the evidence
shows that he is not the real owner of the motorcycle. He is not the real party in interest.
Accordingly, his complaint is dismissed.The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial
court._____________________
________________________________________________________________________________
_____
Issue: Does the act of tailgating merely constitute contributory negligence?( Lambert insists
that the negligence of Ray Castillon was the proximate cause of his unfortunate death and therefore
she is not liable for damages.)_____________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
_____
Held: Yes. The SC found it equitable to increase the ratio of apportionment of damages on account
of the victim’s negligence.______________________________________________________
Article 2179 reads as
follows:_________________________________________________________
When the plaintiff’s negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot
recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause
of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the
courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. The underlying precept on contributory negligence
is that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover
damages in full but must bear the consequences of his own negligence. The defendant must thus be
held liable only for the damages actually caused by his negligence.
The determination of the mitigation of the defendant’s liability varies depending on the
circumstances of each case. In the case at bar, it was established that Ray, at the time of the mishap:
(1)was driving the motorcycle at a high speed; (2) was tailgating the Tamaraw jeepney; (3) has
imbibed one or two bottles of beer; and (4) was not wearing a protective
helmet.____________________________________________________________________
These circumstances, although not constituting the proximate cause of his demise and injury
to Sergio, contributed to the same result. The contribution of these circumstances are all considered
and determined in terms of percentages of the total cause. Hence, pursuant to Rakes v. AG & P, the
heirs of Ray Castillon shall recover damages only up to 50% of the award. In other words, 50% of
the damage shall be borne by the private respondents; the remaining 50% shall be paid by the
petitioner.___________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
_____
________________________________________________________________________________
_____
________________________________________________________________________________
_____
________________________________________________________________________________
_____

Lambert Vs CAstillon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lambert Vs CAstillon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lambert Vs CAstillon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NELEN LAMBERT v. HEIRS OF RAY CASTILLON, MARILOU T.

You might also like