Negligence and Quasi-Delict: When Overtaking on the Shoulder Makes You Liable

The Supreme Court recently affirmed that a driver who overtakes on the shoulder of a road and collides with another vehicle is negligent under Philippine law. In Laza v. Standard Insurance Co., Inc. (G.R. No. 279772, June 29, 2026), the Court denied the petition of a driver and vehicle owner who sought to escape liability for damages arising from a 2014 vehicular accident in La Union. The ruling reaffirms the elements of quasi-delict and clarifies when a vehicle owner may be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of a driver.

The Facts of the Case

On November 6, 2014, a Honda CR-V owned and driven by Peter Paul Nang collided with a Toyota Innova driven by Danilo Agpoon and owned by Mark Laza along the National Highway in Bauang, La Union. Nang was making a left turn across the northbound lane when the Innova, which was overtaking a Nissan Sentra on the right shoulder of the road, hit the CR-V.

Standard Insurance, which insured Nang's CR-V, paid PHP 270,509.42 for repairs. As subrogee of Nang's rights, it filed a complaint for recovery of sum of money based on quasi-delict against Laza and Agpoon.

Agpoon claimed that Nang made a sudden U-turn and that he swerved to avoid the collision. However, evidence showed that Agpoon admitted to overtaking on the right shoulder, a violation of traffic regulations.

The Issue Before the Court

The sole issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court's decision in favor of Standard Insurance. The petitioners raised factual questions about who was negligent and whether Nang violated traffic rules under Republic Act No. 4136.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Court denied the petition, holding that the issues raised were factual in nature and that the Court is not a trier of facts. Under Rule 45, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. The petitioners failed to show any exception to this rule or any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the lower courts.

Elements of quasi-delict. The Court cited the Civil Code provision on quasi-delicts, which provides that whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. To sustain a claim based on quasi-delict, three requisites must concur: (1) damage suffered by the plaintiff; (2) fault or negligence of the defendant; and (3) a connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damage incurred, known as proximate cause.

The Court defined negligence as the failure to observe that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand. The test is whether the defendant used reasonable care and caution which an ordinary person would have used in the same situation.

Negligence established. The Court found that Standard Insurance substantially proved Agpoon's negligence. Agpoon himself admitted that he was overtaking a vehicle on the left and returning to his lane when Nang made a turn from the opposite lane. The Court approved the appellate court's finding that even under Agpoon's own version of events, he was negligent because nothing obstructed his view of the oncoming CR-V.

No violation by Nang. The Court rejected the petitioners' claim that Nang violated Sections 42(a) and 44(a) of Republic Act No. 4136. Evidence showed that Nang had already occupied a substantial portion of the opposite lane when making his turn, and a Nissan Sentra had blinked its headlights to give way to him. The petitioners' allegations were deemed self-serving and unsupported by evidence.

Vicarious liability of the owner. The Court sustained Laza's vicarious liability as Agpoon's employer under the Civil Code provision on vicarious liability. The petitioners were held jointly and severally liable for PHP 270,509.42 in actual damages, PHP 30,000.00 in attorney's fees, and costs of suit, with legal interest at 6% per annum.

Practical Takeaways

• Overtaking on the shoulder is risky. Drivers who overtake on the shoulder of a road violate traffic regulations and may be presumed negligent.
• Admissions matter. A driver's admission of overtaking on the shoulder can be decisive evidence of negligence in a quasi-delict case.
• Vehicle owners face vicarious liability. Under the Civil Code, employers—including vehicle owners—are solidarily liable for the negligent acts of their drivers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks.
• The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Petitions raising only factual questions under Rule 45 will be denied unless a clear exception applies, such as grave abuse of discretion by the lower courts.
• Insurance subrogation is a valid remedy. An insurer that pays a claim may recover the amount from the negligent party as the subrogee of the insured's rights.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.