Fe Perez vs Josefina Gutierrez (Digest)
2
FE PEREZ vs. J OSEFINA GUTIERREZ and PANFILO ALAJAR FACTS: Appellant Fe Perez, together with 9 co- teachers, was a passenger of an AC jeepney registered under the name of Appellee Josefina which met an accident due to the reckless negligence of its driver Leopoldo Cordero resulting in injuries to herself which required her hospitalization. Perez filed a case against Gutierrez for damages in the Court of First Instance of Davao. The complaint was later amended for breach of contract of carriage against Gutierrez. Gutierrez averred that actual owner of the jeepney, Panfilo Alajar, should be held responsible for the accident against whom she filed a third-party complaint. Her assertion was pursuant to the Deed of Sale executed bet Gutierrez and Alajar which provided that the latter binds himself and assumes responsibility for all actions, claims, demands, and rights of action, and whatever kind and nature, that may hereafter develop as a consequence of or in the course of operation of the vehicle. Alajar disclaimed responsibility alleging that the deed of sale was null and void for it has not been registered with the Public Service Commission despite his demands on vendee Gutierrez; the Gutierrez collects rentals from him for the use of said vehicle; and that title to said vehicle remained with Gutierrez pending approval of the sale by the Public Service Commission. CFI Davao Ruling : the trial court found Leopoldo Cordero (driver) guilty of reckless imprudence and found that Alajar owned and operated the vehicle who, in fact, even assumed responsibility for the hospitalization of Perez. The court held Alajar liable to pay Perez hospital expenses, actual and moral damages, incidental expenses and attorney’s fees as well as payment to Gutierrez of moral damages and attorney’s fees, with cost of suit in both cases. The present appeal questions the correctness of the dispositive portion of the decision a quo which adjudged Alajar, instead of Gutierrez, as the party liable to her for the payment of the damages adjudicated in her favor. Perez argues that the registered owner of a motor vehicle should be the one held liable for damages resulting from breach of contract of carriage by a common carrier. ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in holding Alajar liable to answer for damages resulting from breach of contract of carriage RULING: Yes, Gutierrez is the one liable to Perez for damages, not Alajar. RATIO: In Peralta vs. Mangusang: If the property covered by the franchise is transferred or leased to another without obtaining the requisite approval, the transfer is not binding on the Public Service Commission and, in contemplation of law, the grantee continues to be responsible under the franchise in relation to the Commission and to the public for the consequences incident to the operation of the vehicle. In Erezo vs. Jepte: ... that in dealing with vehicles registered under the Public Service Law , the public has the right to assume or presume that the registered owner is the actual owner thereof , for it would be difficult for the public to
description
for Obligations
Transcript of Fe Perez vs Josefina Gutierrez (Digest)
FE PEREZ vs.JOSEFINA GUTIERREZ and PANFILO ALAJAR
FACTS:
Appellant Fe Perez, together with 9 co-teachers, was a passenger of an AC jeepney registered under the name of Appellee Josefina which met an accident due to the reckless negligence of its driver Leopoldo Cordero resulting in injuries to herself which required her hospitalization.
Perez filed a case against Gutierrez for damages in the Court of First Instance of Davao. The complaint was later amended for breach of contract of carriage against Gutierrez.
Gutierrez averred that actual owner of the jeepney, Panfilo Alajar, should be held responsible for the accident against whom she filed a third-party complaint. Her assertion was pursuant to the Deed of Sale executed bet Gutierrez and Alajar which provided that the latter binds himself and assumes responsibility for all actions, claims, demands, and rights of action, and whatever kind and nature, that may hereafter develop as a consequence of or in the course of operation of the vehicle.
Alajar disclaimed responsibility alleging that the deed of sale was null and void for it has not been registered with the Public Service Commission despite his demands on vendee Gutierrez; the Gutierrez collects rentals from him for the use of said vehicle; and that title to said vehicle remained with Gutierrez pending approval of the sale by the Public Service Commission.
CFI Davao Ruling: the trial court found Leopoldo Cordero (driver) guilty of reckless imprudence and found that Alajar owned and operated the vehicle who, in fact, even assumed responsibility for the hospitalization of Perez. The court held Alajar liable to pay Perez hospital expenses, actual and moral damages, incidental expenses and attorney’s fees as well as payment to Gutierrez of moral damages and attorney’s fees, with cost of suit in both cases.
The present appeal questions the correctness of the dispositive portion of the decision a quo which adjudged Alajar, instead of Gutierrez, as the party liable to her for the payment of the damages adjudicated in her favor. Perez argues that the registered owner of a motor vehicle should be the one held liable for damages resulting from breach of contract of carriage by a common carrier.
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in holding Alajar liable to answer for damages resulting from breach of contract of carriage
RULING: Yes, Gutierrez is the one liable to Perez for damages, not Alajar.
RATIO:
In Peralta vs. Mangusang:
If the property covered by the franchise is transferred or leased to another without obtaining the requisite approval, the transfer is not binding on the Public Service Commission and, in contemplation of law, the grantee continues to be responsible under the franchise in relation to the Commission and to the public for the consequences incident to the operation of the vehicle.
In Erezo vs. Jepte:
... that in dealing with vehicles registered under the Public Service Law, the public has the right to assume or presume that the registered owner is the actual owner thereof, for it would be difficult for the public to enforce the actions that they may have for injuries caused to them by the vehicles being negligently operated if the public should be required to prove who the actual owner is.
In Tamayo vs. Aquino:
But as the transferee, who operated the vehicle when the passenger died, is the one directly responsible for the accident and death, he should in turn be made responsible to the registered owner for what the latter may have been adjudged to pay. In operating the truck without transfer thereof having been approved by the Public Service Commission, the transferee acted merely as agent of the registered owner and should be responsible to him (the registered owner), for any damages that he may cause the latter by his negligence.
The trial court erred in holding Panfilo Alajar, rather than Josefina Gutierrez, as the one directly liable to Fe Perez for the latter's injuries and the corresponding damages incurred. Further, the lower court inexplicably failed to hold the driver (Leopoldo Cordero), whom it found guilty of reckless imprudence, jointly and solidarily liable with Josefina Gutierrez to Fe Perez in accordance with the provisions of article 2184 in relation to article 2180 of the new Civil Code.
The judgment is modified in the sense that Josefina Gutierrez and Leopoldo Cordero are hereby adjudged directly and jointly and solidarily liable to Fe Perez for the sums adjudicated in the judgment below in her (Fe Perez') favor, while Panfilo Alajar is, in turn, hereby held answerable to Josefina Gutierrez for such amount as the latter may pay to Fe Perez in satisfaction of the judgment appealed from.
