1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
MANDALUYONG CITY
BRANCH 88
ISABELA C. ABLAZA
Plain
tiff,

Civil Case No. Q-10-88888

For: Damages

-versusSPOUSES RONALD A. ABUEL &

ANNA MARIA S. ABUEL
Defendants.
x--------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT
Plaintiff ISABELA C. ABLAZA, through its counsel, most
respectfully states that:
I.
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff ISABELA C. ABLAZA (Ablaza) is a Filipino citizen,
single, of legal age, and currently residing at Unit 3F Bagong Anyo St.
Corner Bautista, De Castro Subdivision, Pasig City.
2. Defendant RONALD A. ABUEL ("Ronaldbuel") is a Filipino citizen,
married, of legal age, and residing at 7 Lt. Artiaga St., San Juan City
(herein driver).
3. Defendant ANNA MARIA S. ABUEL (Anna Maria), is a Filipino
citizen, single, of legal age, and residing at Corazon de Jesus, San
Juan, Metro Manila.
II.
STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS
4. Plaintiff is the owner of a Kia Potentia sedan, with plate number NPI150, as evidenced by a Deed of Sale of Motor Vehicle hereunto
attached as Annex A and which shows the sale and transfer of

ownership of the said vehicle from its previous owner Adam Musni
(Musni) to the Pplaintiff.
5. At around 4 a.m. on October 10, 2012, the plaintiff was driving the
said Kia Potentia vehicle along Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue
(EDSA)..
6. At that time, Pplaintiff was with a male companion named Aris
Gallas, hereafter referred to as Aris for brevity.
7. Also aAt that time, Pplaintiff and Aris were traversing EDSA to go to
Pplaintiffs workplace at the Flying V office located at along the east
bound lane of Ortigas Avenue.
8. Upon reaching the Department of Trade and Commerce (DOTC)
Building, Pplaintiff, carefully and turn with proper precaution through
the use of signal lights,, took a left turn to go to east bound lane of
Ortigas Ave.
9. Despite Pplaintiffs exercise of due diligence -- ensuring that she
remaineds in her proper lane and blinking her signal lights to
signifying her intention that she isto turning left , she noticed the
Ronald wantonly disregarded her warning signals and s speeded with
an attempt to fast approaching vehicle. get ahead of the Kia Potentia.
10.In an instantFronting the Department of Transportation and
Communication (DOTC) building,, the fast approaching car
collided smashed with the Pplaintiffs vehicle causing tremendous
damage to the entire right (front and rear) doors and panels of the the
saidplaintiffs vehicle, as evidenced by photos attached to plaintiffs
Sinumpaang Salaysay hereunto attached as Annex C.
11. Defendant Ronalds vehicle is a Hyundai Sta. Fe (Hyundai) with
plate number NUO-921, registered under the name of Anna Marie
Abuel, as evidenced by the Certificate of Registration hereunto
attached as Annex D.
12. The resulting damages to the plaintiffs vehicle amounted to EIGHTY
SEVEN THOUSAND PESOS (Php 87,000.00) as evidenced by the
Repairs Estimate herein attached as Annex B.
III.
CAUSES OF ACTION
Defendants areis liable for Quasi-Delict
under Artcile 2176 of the New Civil Code.
Hence, defendants are liable to pay
damages.

13. Article 2176 of the New Civil Code (NCC) provides that,
"[w]Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there
being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.
Such fault or negligence,negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relations between the parties is called a quasi-delict and
is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
14. In Andamo v. IAC, the Supreme Court held that the defendant must be
liable for quasi-delict if the following elements are present: (a) there
are damages suffered by the plaintiff; (b) there is fault or negligence
of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must
respond; and (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault
or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the
plaintiff.1 Such elements are all present in the case at hand. Without
regard to safety precautions, defendant recklessly collided with
plaintiff's car despite the sufficient warning signals given by the latter.
15. Article 1173 of the NCC provides that, [T]he fault or negligence of
the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required
by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances
of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows
bad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall
apply. If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be
observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good father
of a family shall be required".
16. Correspondingly, In this case, Ronald should be held liable for the
damages that the pplaintiffs vehicle incurred asbecause Defendant
RAs he was negligencet and failed to exercise due diligence in
driving his vehicle because he was driving at a very fast speed
immediately prior to the collision and failureed to slow down to
ensure that he would not collide with the plaintiffs vehicle were the
proximate causes of the damages suffered by Plaintiff.
17. In Bataclan v. Medina, the Supreme Court defined proximate cause as
that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by
any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without
which the result would not have occurred.2
18.Furthermore, Ronald failed to exercise ordinary diligence as he had
the last clear chance to avoid the damages or injuries suffered by
plaintiff. When Plaintiff took a left turn, Ronald had a better view of
plaintiffs vehicle as he was driving along a straight road. However,
upon seeing Plaintiffs vehicle, he maintained his speed until it was
too late to avoid the collision.
1
2

Andamo v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74761, November 6, 1990.

Bataclan v. Medina, 102 Phil. 181 (1957).

19. In Picart v. Smith, the Supreme Court held that [c]onduct is said to
be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor
would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently
probable to warrant his foregoing the conduct or guarding against its
consequences.3
20. Likewise, in the same case, the Supreme Court held that even if
Picart (plaintiff) was initially negligent, Smiths (defendant)
negligence succeeded that of Picarts at an appreciable interval.
Hence, Smith who had the last fair chance to avoid the impending
hard and failed to do so was held liable with all the consequences,
without reference to the prior negligence of Picart.
21.According to Ronald, his comprehensive insurance would cover the
repairs for the damage to Plaintiffs car; however, despite repeated
demands, Ronald failed to pay for the damages he caused.
In lieu of the ruling in PCI Leasing and Finance Inc. v. UCPB General
Insurance Co. Inc.,4 wherein the Supreme Court held that registered owner
of vehicles is primarily responsible for the damage caused to the vehicle of
the plaintiff, Anna should be held solidarily liable for damages.
22.
Also, according to the defendant, his comprehensive insurance will cover
the repairs for the damage to the plaintiffs car, however, despite repeated
demands, the defendant failed to pay for the damages he caused.
23. Pursuant to Article 2199 of the NCC, Defendants should solidarily
pay for actual damages, as stated in number 11 of this complaint, plus
legal interests.
24. In view of Ronalds bad faith and adamant refusal to pay his
obligation to Plaintiff, Plaintiff suffered mental anguish and sleepless
nights for which she is entitled to moral damages in the amount of
FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php 50,000.00).
25. Finally, pursuant to Article 2208 (9) of the NCC, DDefendants should
also pay the PlPlaintiffs expenses for attorneys fees and litigation
costs considering that as consequence of Ronalds persistent refusal
to pay for the damages he caused to the Pplaintiffs vehicle, Pplaintiff
was constrained to engage the services of the undersigned counsel for
an acceptance fee of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php 50,000.00)
and FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) per court appearance.
3

Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil. 809 (1918).

PCI Leasing and Finance Inc vs. UCPB General Insurance Co. Inc., 557 SCRA 141 (2008)

P R AYE R
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, plaintiff prays that the
Honorable Court order the the Ddefendants to solidarily pay to Pthe
plaintiff the amount of EIGHTY SEVEN THOUSAND PESOS (Php
87,000.00) representing actual damages, FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(Php 50,000.00) for moral damges, and the cost of Attorneys Fees, and
interests.
Plaintiff also prays for other reliefs, which may be deemed just and
equitable under the circumstances.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set our hand this 24th day
of November 2014, Mandaluyong, Philippines.
By:
ATTY. MANNY PAKYAW
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Rm. 88 Green Sun Bldg.,
No. 88 Mindanao Ave., Pag-asa,
Quezon City, M.M.
Tel. Nos777-7777/456-7890
PHIL. BAR ROLL NO. 12345
MCLE Compliance No. IV-13884/1-2-2014
PTR NO. 88888888/11-10-2014/Q.C.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, ISABELA C. ABLAZA, of legal age, Filipino citizen, single, of
legal age, and a resident of Unit 3F Bagong Anyo St. Corner Bautista, De
Castro Subdivision, Pasig City after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law, depose and state that:
1.

I have caused the preparation of the complaint the contents

of which are true and correct of my personal knowledge and based
on authentic records;

2.

I further certify that I have not commenced any other action

or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals or different Divisions thereof, or any other
tribunal or agency;

3.

If I should learn that a similar action or proceeding has been

filed or pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals,
or different Divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, I
hereby undertake to notify this Honorable Office within five (5)
days from such notice.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signature this 24th day

of November 2014 in Mandaluyong City, Philippines.
ISABELA C. ABLAZA
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 24th day of
November 2014 in Mandaluyong City, Philippines.

Doc. No.:
Page No.:
Book No.:
Series of 2014

NOTARY PUBLIC