Torts Digest 6 Inc

7/25/2019 Torts Digest 6 Inc

1/14

G.R. No. L-65295 March 10, 1987

PHOENIX CONSTRCTION, INC. a!"#RM#N$O . C#R%ONEL, &'()()o!'r*,+*.

THE INTERME$I#TE #PPELL#TE CORTa!" LEON#R$O $IONISIO, r'*&o!"'!(*.

ac(*

In the early morning of 15 November 1975 at about 1:30 a.m. private respondenteonardo !ionisio "as on his "ay home helived in 1#1$%& 'amora (treet) &ang*al)+a*ati from a ,o,*tails%and%dinner meeting"ith his boss) the general manager of a

mar*eting ,orporation. !uring the ,o,*tailsphase of the evening) !ionisio had ta*en -ashot or t"o- of liuor. !ionisio "as driving his/ol*s"agen ,ar and had ust ,rossed theinterse,tion of eneral a,una and eneral(antos (treets at &ang*al) +a*ati) not farfrom his home) and "as pro,eeding do"neneral a,una (treet) "hen his ,arheadlights 2in his allegation suddenly failed.4e s"it,hed his headlights on -bright- andthereupon he sa" a ord dump tru,* loomingsome #%16# meters a"ay from his ,ar. hedump tru,*) o"ned by and registered in thename of petitioner 8hoeni onstru,tion In,.)"as par*ed on the right hand side of enerala,una (treet 2i.e.) on the right hand side of aperson fa,ing in the same dire,tion to"ard"hi,h !ionisio;s ,ar "as pro,eeding) fa,ingthe on,oming trarmando ?.arbonel) its regular driver) "ith thepermission of his employer 8hoeni) in vie" of"or* s,heduled to be ,arried out early thefollo"ing morning) !ionisio ,laimed that hetried to avoid a ,ollision by s"erving his ,ar tothe left but it "as too late and his ,arsmashed into the dump tru,*. >s a result ofthe ,ollision) !ionisio su@ered some physi,al

inuries in,luding some permanent fa,ials,ars) a -nervous brea*do"n- and loss of t"ogold bridge dentures.

!ionisio Aled an a,tion for damages in the Iof 8ampanga ,laiming that the legal and

proimate ,ause of his inuries "as thenegligent manner in "hi,h arbonel hadpar*ed the dump tru,* entrusted to him byhis employer 8hoeni. 8hoeni and arbonel)on the other hand) ,ountered that the

proimate ,ause of !ionisio;s inuries "as hiso"n re,*lessness in driving fast at the time ofthe a,,ident) "hile under the in=uen,e ofliuor) "ithout his headlights on and "ithout a,urfe" pass. 8hoeni also sought to establishthat it had eer,ised due ,are in the sele,tionand supervision of the dump tru,* driver.

he trial ,ourt ruled in favor of !ionisio. Itordered 8hoeni and arbonel to ointly andseverally pay the sum of 815)000 for hospitalbills and the repla,ement of lost dentures of

plainti@B 8150)000 as loss of epe,ted in,omefor plainti@B 810)000 as moral damages)810)000 as damages for the "anton disregardof defendants to settle the ,ase and 8$)500as attorneyCs fees and ,ost of suit.

8hoeni and arbonel appealed to theIntermediate >ppellate ourt. he ourta


2/14

1. 8rivate respondent !ionisio "as negligentthe night of the a,,ident. 4e "as hurryinghome that night and driving faster than heshould have been. Eorse) he etinguished hisheadlights at or near the interse,tion ofeneral a,una and eneral (antos (treetsand thus did not see the dump tru,* that "aspar*ed as*e" and sti,*ing out onto the roadlane.

Nonetheless) (h' 'a a!" &ro)3a('ca*' o4 (h' acc)"'!( a!" o4 $)o!)*)o*)!r)'* a* (h' ro!4 or !')'!(3a!!'r )! h)ch (h' "3& (rc a*&ar'" )! o(h'r or"*, (h' !')'!c' o4&'()()o!'r Car:o!'. hat there "as areasonable relationship bet"een petitioner

arbonel;s negligen,e on the one hand andthe a,,ident and respondent;s inuries on theother hand) is uite ,lear. 8ut in a slightlydi@erent manner) the ,ollision of !ionisio;s ,ar"ith the dump tru,* "as a natural andforeseeable ,onseuen,e of the tru,* driver;snegligen,e.

#. he tru,* driver;s negligen,e far from beinga -passive and stati, ,ondition- "as rather anindispensable and e o4

(h' )!r; r'3a)!'" (h' (rc "r)+'r*>ac o4 "' car'> and that ,onseuentlyrespondent !ionisio may re,over damagesthough su,h damages are sube,t tomitigation by the ,ourts 2>rti,le #179) ivilode of the 8hilippines.


3/14

$. he theory of petitioners is that "hile thepetitioner tru,* driver "as negligent) privaterespondent !ionisio had the -last ,lear,han,e- of avoiding the a,,ident and hen,ehis inuries) and that !ionisio having failed tota*e that -last ,lear ,han,e- must bear hiso"n inuries alone.

he last ,lear ,han,e do,trine of the ,ommonla" "as imported into our urisdi,tion by8i,art vs. (mith but it is a matter for debate"hether) or to "hat etent) it has found its"ay into the ivil ode of the 8hilippines. hehistori,al fun,tion of that do,trine in the,ommon la" "as to mitigate the harshness ofanother ,ommon la" do,trine or rule that of

,ontributory negligen,e. he ,ommon la"rule of ,ontributory negligen,e prevented anyre,overy at all by a plainti@ "ho "as alsonegligent) even if the plainti@;s negligen,e"as relatively minor as ,ompared "ith the"rongful a,t or omission of the defendant.

he ,ommon la" notion of last ,lear ,han,epermitted ,ourts to grant re,overy to aplainti@ "ho had also been negligent providedthat the defendant had the last ,lear ,han,eto avoid the ,asualty and failed to do so.>,,ordingly) it is dirti,le #179 of the ivil ode of the8hilippines.

?nder >rti,le #179) the tas* of a ,ourt) inte,hni,al terms) is to determine "hosenegligen,e the plainti@;s or the defendant;s

"as the legal or proimate ,ause of theinury. hat tas* is not simply or evenprimarily an eer,ise in ,hronology or physi,s)as the petitioners seem to imply by the use ofterms li*e -last- or -intervening- or-immediate.- he relative lo,ation in the,ontinuum of time of the plainti@;s and thedefendant;s negligent a,ts or omissions) isonly one of the relevant fa,tors that may beta*en into a,,ount. Jf more fundamentalimportan,e are the nature of the negligent a,tor omission of ea,h party and the ,hara,ter

and gravity of the ris*s ,reated by su,h a,t oromission for the rest of the ,ommunity. hepetitioners urge that the tru,* driver shouldbe absolved from responsibility for his o"nprior negligen,e be,ause the unfortunateplainti@ failed to a,t "ith that in,reased

diligen,e "hi,h had be,ome ne,essary toavoid the peril pre,isely ,reated by the tru,*driver;s o"n "rongful a,t or omission. oa,,ept this proposition is to ,ome too ,lose to"iping out the fundamental prin,iple of la"that a man must respond for the forseeable,onseuen,es of his o"n negligent a,t oromission. Jur la" on uasi%deli,ts see*s toredu,e the ris*s and burdens of living inso,iety and to allo,ate them among themembers of so,iety. o a,,ept the petitioners;pro%position must tend to "ea*en the verybonds of so,iety.

8etitioner arbonel;s proven negligen,e,reates a presumption of negligen,e on thepart of his employer 8hoeni in supervising its

employees properly and adeuately. herespondent appellate ,ourt in e@e,t foundthat 8hoeni "as not able to over,ome thispresumption of negligen,e. he ,ir,umstan,ethat 8hoeni had allo"ed its tru,* driver tobring the dump tru,* to his home "heneverthere "as "or* to be done early the follo"ingmorning) "hen ,oupled "ith the failure tosho" any e@ort on the part of 8hoeni tosupervise the manner in "hi,h the dumptru,* is par*ed "hen a"ay from ,ompanypremises) is an a Loana 8aula passenger bus "as ,ruising on the opposite laneto"ards the van.In bet"een the t"o vehi,les "as a par*ed prime mover "ith atrailer) o"ned by private respondent iberty orest) In,. henight before the prime mover "ith trailer su@ered a tireblo"out. he driver) private respondent resilito imbaga)par*ed the prime mover as*e" o,,upying a substantial portionof the national high"ay) on the lane of the passenger bus. heprime mover "as not euipped "ith triangular) ,ollapsiblere=e,toried plates) an early "arning devi,e reuired. >ssubstitute) imbaga pla,ed a banana trun* "ith leaves on thefront and the rear portion of the prime mover to "arn in,omingmotorists.It is alleged that imbaga li*e"ise pla,ed *erosene lighted tin

,ans on the front and rear of the trailer.O5Po avoid hitting the par*ed prime mover o,,upying its lane) thein,oming passenger bus s"erved to the right) onto the lane ofthe approa,hing Nissan van.

Jrti sa" t"o bright and glaring headlights and theapproa,hing passenger bus. 4e pumped his brea* slo"ly)s"erved to the left to avoid the on,oming bus but the van hit
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/161803.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/161803.htm#_ftn6


4/14

the front of the stationary prime mover. he passenger bus hitthe rear of the prime mover .

P'()()o!'r N)**a! +a! o!'r '" a co3&a)!( 4or"a3a'*D8aa)!*( &r)+a(' r'*&o!"'!(* &r)3' 3o+'ro!'r a!" "r)+'r )(h (h' RTC . Th' Aoa!a Paa&a**'!'r :* a* !o( )3&'a"'" a* "'4'!"a!( )! (h'co3&a)!(.RTC defendants iberty orest) In,. and resilito +. imbagapay) ointly and solidarily) plainti@ !y eban rading) In,.

-held that the proximate cause of the three-wayvehicular collision was improper parking of the prime mover onthe national highway and the absence of an early warningdevice on the vehicle.

C# reversed the M

% held that the proximate cause of the vehicularcollision was the failure of the Nissan van to give way or yieldto the right of way of the passenger bus.The CA disagreed with the TC that the prime mover did nothave an early warning device. The appellate court acceptedthe claim of private respondent that !imbaga placed kerosenelighted tin cans on the front and rear of the trailer which"in Baliwag Transit" #nc. v. Court of Appeals"$%&'may act assubstitute early warning device.

I**'* 1 "hether or not prime mover driver imbaga "asnegligent in par*ing the vehi,leB QR(

R)!

#r()c' 2176of the ivil ode provides that "hoeverby a,t or omission ,auses damage to another) there being faultor negligen,e) is obliged to pay for the damage done. (u,hfault or negligen,e) if there is no pre%eisting ,ontra,tualrelation bet"een the parties) is ,alled a (uasi-delict.

To **(a)! a ca)3 :a*'" o! quasi-delict, (h'4oo)! r'=)*)('* 3*( co!cr Fa "a3a' *'r'"

:; &a)!() F: 4a( or !')'!c' o4 "'4'!"a!( a!" Fcco!!'c()o! o4 ca*' a!" ''c( :'(''! (h' 4a( or!')'!c' o4 "'4'!"a!( a!" (h' "a3a' )!crr'" :;&a)!().

imbaga "as negligent in par*ing theprime mover on the national high"ayB he failed toprevent or minimie the ris* to in,omingmotorists.

N')'!c' is deAned as the failure to observe forthe prote,tion of the interests of another person that degree of,are) pre,aution) and vigilan,e "hi,h the ,ir,umstan,es ustlydemand) "hereby su,h other person su@ers inury.

he test of negligen,e is obe,tive. Ee measure thea,t or omission of the tortfeasor "ith that of an ordinaryreasonable person in the same situation. Th' ('*(, a* a&&)'"(o (h)* ca*', )* h'(h'r L)3:aa, )! &ar)! (h' &r)3'3o+'r, *'" (ha( r'a*o!a:' car' a!" ca()o! h)ch a!or")!ar; r'a*o!a:' &'r*o! o" ha+' *'" )! (h'*a3' *)(a()o!.

Ee And that imbaga "as utterly negligent in par*ingthe prime mover as*e" on the right side of the nationalhigh"ay. he vehi,le o,,upied a substantial portion of thenational road on the lane of the passenger bus. It "as par*edat the shoulder of the road "ith its left "heels still on the,emented high"ay and the right "heels on the sand and gravelshoulder of the high"ay. It is ,ommon sense that the s*e"edpar*ing of the prime mover on the national road posed a

serious ris* to on,oming motorists. It "as in,umbent uponimbaga to ta*e some measures to prevent that ris*) or at leastminimie it.imbaga also failed to ta*e proper steps to minimie the ris*posed by the improperly par*ed prime mover. 4e did notimmediately inform his employer) private respondent iberty

orest) In,.) that the prime mover su@ered t"o tire blo"outsand that he ,ould not have them Aed be,ause he had only onespare tire. Instead of ,alling for help) imbaga too* it uponhimself to simply pla,e banana leaves on the front and rear ofthe prime mover to serve as "arning to on,omingmotorists. Eorse) imbaga slept on the prime mover instead ofstanding guard beside the vehi,le. &y his o"n a,,ount)imbaga "as sleeping on the prime mover at the time of the

,ollision and that he "as only a"a*ened by the impa,t of theNissan van and the passenger bus on the prime mover.O#0P

imbaga also admitted on ,ross%eamination that it

"as his Arst time to drive the prime mover "ith trailer loaded"ith a !%K ,aterpillar bulldoer.O#1PJ' !" (ha( &r)+a('r'*&o!"'!( L):'r(; or'*(, I!c. a* (('r; !')'!( )!ao)! a !o+)c' "r)+'r, )' L)3:aa, (o o&'ra(' a+'h)c', *ch a* a (rc oa"'" )(h a :"oK'r, h)chr'=)r'" h)h; *&'c)a)K'" "r)+)! *)*. R'*&o!"'!('3&o;'r c'ar; 4a)'" (o &ro&'r; *&'r+)*' L)3:aa )!"r)+)! (h' &r)3' 3o+'r.

he M noted that private respondent iberty orest)In,. also failed to *eep the prime mover in proper ,ondition atthe time of the ,ollision. he prime mover had "orn out tires. It"as only euipped "ith one spare tire. It "as for this reasonthat imbaga "as unable to ,hange the t"o blo"n out tiresbe,ause he had only one spare.

# (o", J' ar'' )(h (h' RTC (ha( &r)+a('r'*&o!"'!( L)3:aa a* !')'!( )! &ar)! (h' &r)3'3o+'r o! (h' !a()o!a h)ha;. Pr)+a(' r'*&o!"'!(L):'r(; or'*(, I!c. a* a*o !')'!( )! 4a))! (o*&'r+)*' L)3:aa a!" )! '!*r)! (ha( (h' &r)3'3o+'r a* )! &ro&'r co!")()o!.ISSE 2 h'(h'r or !o( h)* !')'!c' a* (h'&ro)3a(' ca*' o4 (h' "a3a' (o (h' N)**a! +a!. QR(

he s*e"ed par*ing of the prime mover

"as the proimate ,ause of the ,ollision.

,ause is deAned as that ,ause) "hi,h) in natural and,ontinuous seuen,e) unbro*en by any e


5/14

,ause of his death "as the Are and not theoverturning of the vehi,le. &ut in the present,ase and under the ,ir,umstan,es obtainingin the same) "e do not hesitate to hold thatthe proimate ,ause of the death of &ata,lan"as the overturning of the bus) this for thereason that "hen the vehi,le turned not onlyon its side but ,ompletely on its ba,*) the

lea*ing of the gasoline from the tan* "as notunnatural or unepe,tedB that the ,oming ofthe men "ith a lighted tor,h "as in responseto the ,all for help) made not only by thepassengers) but most probably) by the driverand the ,ondu,tor themselves) and thatbe,ause it "as very dar* 2about #:30 in themorning) the res,uers had to ,arry a light"ith themB and ,oming as they did from arural area "here lanterns and =ashlights "erenot available) they had to use a tor,h) themost handy and availableB and "hat "asmore natural than that said res,uers shouldinno,ently approa,h the overturned vehi,leto etend the aid and e@e,t the res,uereuested from them. In other "ords) the,oming of the men "ith the tor,h "as to beepe,ted and "as natural seuen,e of theoverturning of the bus) the trapping of someof its passengers bus) the trapping of some ofits passengers and the ,all for outside help.

he ruling in Bataclanhas been repeatedly ,ited in

subseuent ,ases as authority for the proposition that thedamage or inury must be a natural or probable result of the a,tor omission. 4ere) Ee agree "ith the M that the damage,aused to the Nissan van "as a natural and probable result ofthe improper par*ing of the prime mover "ith trailer.

Pr)+a(' r'*&o!"'!(* L):'r(; or'*(, I!c. a!"L)3:aa ar' )a:' 4or a "a3a'* (ha( r'*('" 4ro3

(h' *''" &ar)! o4 (h' &r)3' 3o+'r. Th')r )a:))(;)!c"'* (ho*' "a3a'* r'*()! 4ro3 &r'ca()o!ar;3'a*r'* (a'! :; o(h'r 3o(or)*( )! (r;)! (o a+o)"co)*)o! )(h (h' &ar'" &r)3' 3o+'r.

>ll told) all the elements of (uasi delicthave been proven by,lear and ,onvin,ing eviden,e. he > erred in absolvingprivate respondents from liability for the vehi,ular ,ollision.SC RTC r')!*(a('"

RHEA CASE

G.R. No. 75112 October 16, 1990

FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE, petitioner,vs.HONORALE COURT OF A!!EALS, HONORALE ENRI"UE !.SU!LICO, #$ %#& c'('c#t) '& *+-e o t%e Re-#o$'/ Tr#'/ Co+rt,.r'$c% I, Ro'& C#t) '$ t%e /'te !OTENCIANO 3A!UNAN, SR.,'& &+b&t#t+te b) %#& %e#r&, $'4e/) LEONA 3A!UNAN TIANGCO,CICERO 3A!UNAN, *ESUS 3A!UNAN, SANTIAGO 3A!UNAN,

!OTENCIANO 3A!UNAN, *R., !A 3A!UNAN !ULICO, SUSA3A!UNAN GENUINO '$ ERLINA 3A!UNANTESORO, respondents.

FACTS:

Private respondent Potenciano Kapunan, Sr., an eighty-to-year o!d

retired schoo!teacher "no deceased#, as struc$ %y the Pinoy &eep

oned %y petitioner Fi!a'er and driven %y its a!!eged e'p!oyee,

Funtecha, as Kapunan, Sr. as a!$ing a!ong Ro(as Avenue, Ro(as

City at ):*+ in the evening o cto%er +, /011. As a resu!t o the

accident, Kapunan, Sr. suered 'u!tip!e in&uries or hich he as

hospita!i2ed or a tota! o tenty "+# days.

Evidence shoed that at the precise ti'e o the vehicu!ar accident, on!yone head!ight o the &eep as unctioning. Funtecha, ho on!y had astudent driver3s per'it, as driving ater having persuaded A!!an 4asa,the authori2ed driver, to turn over the hee!s to hi'. The to !ed ro'the scene ater the incident. A tricyc!e driver %rought the unconsciousvicti' to the hospita!.

Thereater, Kapunan, Sr. instituted a cri'ina! case against Funtechaa!one. Kapunan, Sr. reserved his right to i!e an independent civi! action.Pursuant to his reservation, Kapunan, Sr. co''enced a civi! case orda'ages %eore the RTC o Ro(as City. 5a'ed deendants in theco'p!aint ere petitioner Fi!a'er and Funtecha. A!so inc!uded as

Agustin 4asa, the director and president o Fi!a'er Christian 6nstitute, inhis persona! capacity in that he persona!!y authori2ed and a!!oed said

7anie! Funtecha ho as his house%oy at the ti'e o the incident, todrive the vehic!e in 8uestion despite his $no!edge and aareness thatthe !atter did not have the necessary !icense or per'it to drive saidvehic!e. His son, A!!an 4asa, ho as ith Funtecha at the ti'e o theaccident, asnoti'p!eaded as a co-deendant.

6SS9E: HETHER R 5T THE TER4 ;E4P


6/14

UT U!ON RECONSIERATION IN

G.R. No. 75112 A+-+&t 17, 1992

FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE, petitioner,vs.HON. INTERMEIATE A!!ELLATE COURT, HON. ENRI"UE !.

SU!LICO, #$ %#& c'('c#t) '& *+-e o t%e Re-#o$'/ Tr#'/ Co+rt,r'$c% I, Ro'& C#t) '$ !OTENCIANO 3A!UNAN,SR., respondents.

The private respondents assert that the circu'stances o%taining in thepresent case ca!! or the app!ication o Artic!e />+ o the Civi! Codesince Funtecha is no dou%t an e'p!oyee o the petitioner. The privaterespondents 'aintain that under Artic!e />+ an in&ured party sha!! haverecourse against the servant as e!! as the petitioner or ho', at theti'e o the incident, the servant as peror'ing an act in urtherance othe interest and or the %eneit o the petitioner.

RULING

7riving the vehic!e to and ro' the house o the schoo! president here%oth A!!an and Funtecha reside is '$ 'ct #$ +rt%er'$ce o t%e #$tere&to t%e (et#t#o$er8&c%oo/. A!!an3s &o% de'ands that he drive ho'e theschoo! &eep so he can use it to etch students in the 'orning o the ne(tschoo! day.

6t is indu%ita%!e under the circu'stances that the schoo! president had$no!edge that the &eep as routine!y driven ho'e or the said purpose.4oreover, it is not i'pro%a%!e that the schoo! president a!so had$no!edge o Funtecha3s possession o a student driver3s !icense andhis desire to undergo driving !essons during the ti'e that he as not inhis c!assroo's.

6n !earning ho to drive hi!e ta$ing the vehic!e ho'e in the direction oA!!an3s house, Funtecha deinite!y as not having a &oy ride. Funtecha

as not driving or the purpose o his en&oy'ent or or a ;ro!ic o hison; %ut u!ti'ate!y, or t%e &er#ce or :%#c% t%e ;ee( :'& #$te$eb) t%e (et#t#o$er &c%oo/. Thereore, the Court is constrained toconc!ude that t%e 'ct o F+$tec%' #$ t'


7/14

he heirs of the vi,tims Aled a ,omplaint for damages against

N8 and 84R(J In,orporated 284R(J before the then I of

anao del Norte) +ara"i ity. !efendant 84R(J Aled its

ans"er and ,ontended that it "as not the o"ner of the dump

tru,* "hi,h ,ollided "ith the oyota amara" but N8. It

asserted that it "as merely a ,ontra,tor of N8 "ith the main

duty of supplying "or*ers and te,hni,ians for the latter;s

proe,ts.

Jn the other hand) N8 denied any liability and ,ountered that

the driver of the dump tru,* "as the employee of 84R(J.

>fter trial on the merits) the trial ,ourt absolved N8 of any

liability.

84R(J appealed to the >) "hi,h reversed the trial ,ourt;s

udgment) Anding that the latter is merely as an agent of the

employer sin,e it is a -labor only- ,ontra,tor and that is an

employer%employee relationship bet"een the o"ner of the

proe,t and the employees of the -labor only- ,ontra,tor.

N8 Aled an +M of said de,ision but "as denied.

ISSE

Ehether or not N8 is the one liable for the damages to the

vi,timsS

RLING

he ourt held that 84R(J "as engaged in -labor only-

,ontra,ting. It is ,onsidered merely an agent of the latter. (in,e

it is only a -labor%only- ,ontra,tor) the "or*ers it supplied to

N8) in,luding the driver of the ill%fated tru,*) should be

,onsidered as employees of N8.

4o"ever) N8 maintains that even assuming that a -labor only-

,ontra,t eists bet"een it and 84R(J) its liability "ill not

etend to third persons "ho are inured due to the tortious a,ts

of the employee of the -labor%only- ,ontra,tor. It ,ited (e,tion

92b) Mule /II) &oo* III of the Jmnibus Mules Implementing the

abor ode "hi,h reads:

2b abor only ,ontra,ting as deAned herein is hereby

prohibited and the person a,ting as ,ontra,tor shall be

,onsidered merely as an agent or intermediary of the

employer "ho shall be responsible to the workersin

the same manner and etent as if the latter "ere

dire,tly employed by him.

In other "ords) N8 posits the theory that its liability is limited

only to ,omplian,e "ith the substantive labor provisions on

"or*ing ,onditions) rest periods) and "ages and shall not

etend to liabilities su@ered by third parties.

Th' r')a!c' )* 3)*&ac'". I( :'ar* *(r'**)! (ha( (h'

ac()o! a* &r'3)*'" o! (h' r'co+'r; o4 "a3a'* a* a

r'*( o4 =a*)-"')c( aa)!*( :o(h NPC a!" PHESCO,

h'!c', )( )* (h' C)+) Co"' a!" !o( (h' La:or Co"' h)ch

)* (h' a&&)ca:' a )! r'*o+)! (h)* ca*'.

he pronoun,ement of this ourt in ,ilamer Christian #nstitute

v. #AC) is most instru,tive:

The present case does not deal with a labor dispute

on conditions of employment between an alleged

employee and an alleged employer. #t invokes a claim

brought by one for damages for inury caused by the

patently negligent acts of a person" against both doer-

employee and his employer. ence" the reliance on

the implementing rule on labor to disregard the

primary liability of an employer under Article /%01 of

the Civil Code is misplaced. An implementing rule on

labor cannot be used by an employer as a shield to

avoid liability under the substantive provisions of the

Civil Code.

iven the above ,onsiderations) )( )* a&&ar'!( (ha( #r()c'

2180 o4 (h' C)+) Co"' a!" !o( (h' La:or Co"' )

"'('r3)!' (h' )a:))(; o4 NPC )! a c)+) *)( 4or "a3a'*

)!*()(('" :; a! )!r'" &'r*o! 4or a!; !')'!( ac( o4

(h' '3&o;''* o4 (h' >a:or o!;> co!(rac(or. his is

,onsistent "ith the ruling that a Anding that a ,ontra,tor "as a

-labor%only- ,ontra,tor is euivalent to a Anding that an

employer%employee relationship eisted bet"een the o"ner

2prin,ipal ,ontra,tor and the -labor%only- ,ontra,tor) in,luding

the latter;s "or*ers.

Eith respe,t to the liability of N8 as the dire,t employer)

>rti,le #1K0 of the ivil ode epli,itly provides:

Rmployers shall be liable for the damages ,aused by

their employees and household helpers a,ting "ithin

the s,ope of their assigned tas*s) even though the

former are not engaged in any business or industry.

I! (h)* r'ar", NPC* )a:))(; )* ")r'c(, &r)3ar; a!"*o)"ar; )(h PHESCO a!" (h' "r)+'r.


8/14

If the udgment for damages is satisAed by N8) it shall)

ho"ever) have re,ourse against 84R(J and the driver "ho

,ommitted the negligen,e "hi,h gave rise to the a,tion.

NJR:

N8 ,ould have dis,laimed any liability had it raised the

defense of due diligen,e in the sele,tion or supervision of

84R(J and Ilumba. 4o"ever) for some reason or another) N8

did not invo*e said defense. 4en,e) by opting not to present

any eviden,e that it eer,ised due diligen,e in the supervision

of the a,tivities of 84R(J and Ilumba) N8 has fore,losed its

right to interpose the same on appeal in ,onformity "ith the

rule that points of la") theories) issues of fa,ts and arguments

not raised in the pro,eedings belo" ,annot be ventilated for

the Arst time on appeal. onseuently) its liability stands.

G.R. No. 1@2266 $'c'3:'r 21, 1999

C#STILEX IN$STRI#L

CORPOR#TION, petitioner)vs.

ICENTE #SE, AR. a!" LIS# SO

#SE, a!" CE% $OCTORS HOSPIT#L,

INC., respondents.

ac(*

Jn #K >ugust 19KK) at around 1:30 to #:00 in the

morning) Momeo (o /asue) "as driving a 4onda

motor,y,le around uente JsmeTa Motunda. 4e

"as traveling ,ounter%,lo,*"ise) 2the normal =o"

of trabad O"as aP manager of

>ppellant astile Industrial orporation)

registered o"ner OofP a oyota 4i%u 8i,*%up "ith

plate no. &E%79$. Jn the same date and time)

>bad drove the said ,ompany ,ar out of a par*ing

lot but instead of going around the JsmeTa

rotunda he made a short ,ut against OtheP =o" of

the trabad ,ollided "ith ea,h other ,ausing

severe inuries to the former. >bad stopped his

vehi,le and brought /asue to the (outhern

Islands 4ospital and later to the ebu !o,tor;s

4ospital.

/asue died at the ebu !o,tor;s 4ospital. It "as

there that >bad signed an a,*no"ledgment of

Mesponsible 8arty 2Rhibit "herein he agreed to

pay "hatever hospital bills) professional fees and

other in,idental ,harges /asue may in,ur.

>fter the poli,e authorities had ,ondu,ted the

investigation of the a,,ident) a riminal ase "as

Aled against >bad but "hi,h "as subseuently

dismissed for failure to prose,ute. (o) the present

a,tion for damages "as ,ommen,ed by /i,ente

/asue) Lr. and uisa (o /asue) parents of the

de,eased Momeo (o /asue) against Lose

&enamin >bad and astile Industrial orporation.

In the same a,tion) ebu !o,tor;s 4ospitalintervened to ,olle,t unpaid balan,e for the

medi,al epense given to Momeo (o /asue.1

M:in favor of private respondents

>: a&>! and >(IRU liable

but held that the liability of the latter is -only

vi,arious and not solidary- "ith the former

ISSES

1. EJN > "as ,orre,t in applying the Afth

paragraph of >rti,le #1K0 in the ,ase at

bar. QR(

22etitioner contends that the 3fth

paragraph of Article /%01 of the Civil Code

should only apply to instances where the

employer is not engaged in business or

industry. 4ince it is engaged in the

business of manufacturing and selling

furniture it is therefore not covered by said

provision. #nstead" the fourth paragraphshould apply.5

#. EJN 8etitioner may be held vi,ariously

liable for the death resulting from the

negligent operation by a managerial

employee 2>&>! of a ,ompany%issued

vehi,le. NJ) >&>! "as engaged in a@airs

of his o"n or "as ,arrying out a personal

purpose not in line "ith his duties at the

time he Agured in a vehi,ular a,,ident

R)!

1. 8etitioner;s interpretation of the Afth

paragraph is not a,,urate. he phrase

-even though the former are not engaged

in any business or industry- found in the


9/14

Afth paragraph should be interpreted to

mean that it is not ne,essary for the

employer to be engaged in any business or

industry to be liable for the negligen,e of

his employee "ho is a,ting "ithin the

s,ope of his assigned tas*.5

> distin,tion must be made bet"een the t"o

provisions to determine "hat is appli,able. &oth

provisions apply to employers: the fourth

paragraph) to o"ners and managers of an

establishment or enterpriseB and the Afth

paragraph) to employers in general) "hether or

not engaged in any business or industry. he

fourth paragraph ,overs negligent a,ts of

employees ,ommitted either in the servi,e of the

bran,hes or on the o,,asion of their fun,tions)

"hile the Afth paragraph en,ompasses negligenta,ts of employees a,ting "ithin the s,ope of their

assigned tas*. he latter is an epansion of the

former in both employer ,overage and a,ts

in,luded. Negligent a,ts of employees) "hether or

not the employer is engaged in a business or

industry) are ,overed so long as they "ere a,ting

"ithin the s,ope of their assigned tas*) even

though ,ommitted neither in the servi,e of the

bran,hes nor on the o,,asion of their fun,tions.

or) admittedly) employees oftentimes "ear

di@erent hats. hey perform fun,tions "hi,h are

beyond their orti,le #1K0) "hether

or not engaged in any business or industry) an

employer is liable for the torts ,ommitted by

employees "ithin the s,ope of his assigned tas*s.

&ut it is ne,essary to establish the employer%

employee relationshipB on,e this is done) the

plainti@ must sho") to hold the employer liable)

that the employee "as a,ting "ithin the s,ope of

his assigned tas* "hen the tort ,omplained of "as

,ommitted. It is only then that the employer mayAnd it ne,essary to interpose the defense of due

diligen,e in the sele,tion and supervision of the

employee.

2. >&>! testiAed that at the time of the

in,ident that he "as driving a ,ompany%

issued vehi,le) registered under the name

of petitioner. 4e "as then leaving the

restaurant "here he had some sna,*s and

had a ,hat "ith his friends after having

done overtime "or* for the petitioner.

No absolutely hard and fast rule ,an be stated

"hi,h "ill furnish the ,omplete ans"er to the

problem of "hether at a given moment) an

employee is engaged in his employer;s business in

the operation of a motor vehi,le) so as to A

liability upon the employer be,ause of the

employee;s a,tion or ina,tionB but rather) the

result varies "ith ea,h state of fa,ts. 11

In ,ilamer Christian #nstitute v.#ntermediate

Appellant Court) 12this ourt had the o,,asion to

hold that a,ts done "ithin the s,ope of the

employee;s assigned tas*s in,ludes -any a,t done

by an employee in furtheran,e of the interests of

the employer or for the a,,ount of the employer at

the time of the in=i,tion of the inury or damages.-

he ,ourt a (uoand the ourt of >ppeals "ere one

in holding that the driving by a manager of a

,ompany%issued vehi,le is "ithin the s,ope of his

assigned tas*s regardless of the time and

,ir,umstan,es.

Ee do not agree. he mere fa,t that >&>! "as

using a servi,e vehi,le at the time of the inurious

in,ident is not of itself su ha" !o co!!'c()o! (o &'()()o!'r*

:*)!'** !')(h'r ha" )( a!; r'a()o! (o h)*

"()'* a* a 3a!a'r. Ra(h'r, *)! h)*

*'r+)c' +'h)c' '+'! 4or &'r*o!a &r&o*'*

a* a 4or3 o4 a 4r)!' :'!'( or o!' o4 (h'

&'r* a((ach'" (o h)* &o*)()o!.

(in,e there is pau,ity of eviden,e that >&>! "as

a,ting "ithin the s,ope of the fun,tions entrusted

to him) petitioner >(IRU had no duty to sho"

that it eer,ised the diligen,e of a good father of a

family in providing >&>! "ith a servi,e vehi,le.

hus) usti,e and euity reuire that petitioner be

relieved of vi,arious liability for the ,onseuen,es

of the negligen,e of >&>! in driving its vehi,le.

E4RMRJMR) the petition is M>NR!) and the

appealed de,ision and resolution of the ourt of

>ppeals is >IM+R! "ith the modiA,ation that

petitioner astile Industrial orporation be


10/14

absolved of any liability for the damages ,aused

by its employee) Lose &enamin >bad.

SOTHE#STERN COLLEGE, INC.,petitioner, vs. CORT O

#PPE#LS, A#NIT# $E AESS $#. $E $IM##NO,

EMERIT# $IM##NO, REME$IOS $IM##NO, CONSOL#CION

$IM##NO a!" MIL#GROS $IM##NO, respondents.

#CTS

8rivate respondents are o"ners of a house at 3#D ollege

Moad) 8asay ity) "hile petitioner o"ns a four%storey s,hool

building along the same ollege Moad. Jn J,tober 11) 19K9) at

about D:30 in the morning) a po"erful typhoon (alinghit +etro

+anila. &u@eted by very strong "inds) the roof of petitionersbuilding "as partly ripped o@ and blo"n a"ay) landing on and

destroying portions of the rooAng of private respondents house.

>fter the typhoon had passed) an o,ular inspe,tion of the

destroyed buildings "as ,ondu,ted by a team of engineers

headed by the ,ity building o/5by the a,t of man) su,h as an
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn10


11/14

armed invasion) atta,* by bandits) governmental prohibitions)

robbery) et,.O11P

I! or"'r (ha( a 4or()(o* '+'!( 3a; ''3&( a

&'r*o! 4ro3 )a:))(;, )( )* !'c'**ar; (ha( h' :' 4r'' 4ro3

a!; &r'+)o* !')'!c' or 3)*co!"c( :; r'a*o! o4

h)ch (h' o** 3a; ha+' :''! occa*)o!'".D12>n a,t of

od ,annot be invo*ed for the prote,tion of a person "ho hasbeen guilty of gross negligen,e in not trying to forestall its

possible adverse ,onseuen,es. Ehen a persons negligen,e

,on,urs "ith an a,t of od in produ,ing damage or inury to

another) su,h person is not eempt from liability by sho"ing

that the immediate or proimate ,auseof the damage or inury

"as a fortuitous event. Ehen the e@e,t is found to be partly

the result of the parti,ipation of man "hether it be from a,tive

intervention) or negle,t) or failure to a,t the "hole o,,urren,e

is hereby humanied) and removed from the rules appli,able to

a,ts of od.

4ere) sin,e petitioner "as proven not to be negligent)

hen,e) 8etitioner ,annot be made to ans"er for a purely

fortuitous event.O

DG.R. No. 11502. ':rar; 7, 1996M#. LOR$ES #LENEL#,petitioner,vs. CORT O #PPE#LS, RICH#R$ LI a!"#LEX#N$ER COMMERCI#L,INC., respondents.

ac(*

his is an a,tion to re,over damages basedon uasi%deli,t) for serious physi,al inuriessustained in a vehi,ular a,,ident.

8lainti@Cs version of the a,,ident is as follo"s:>t around #:00 in the morning of Lune #$)1990) plainti@ +a. ourdes /alenuela "asdriving a blue +itsubishi lan,er "ith 8late No.? 5$#from her restaurant at +ar,os

high"ay to her home at 8alana(treet) >raneta >venue. (he "as travellingalong >urora &lvd. "ith a ,ompanion) e,iliaMamon) heading to"ards the dire,tionof +anila. &efore rea,hing >. a*e (treet) shenoti,ed something "rong "ith her tiresB shestopped at a lighted pla,e "here there "erepeople) to verify "hether she had a =at tireand to soli,it help if needed. 4aving been toldby the people present that her rear right tire"as =at and that she ,annot rea,h her homein that ,ars ,ondition) she par*ed along the

side"al*) about 1 feet a"ay) put on heremergen,y lights) alighted from the ,ar) and"ent to the rear to open the trun*. (he "asstanding at the left side of the rear of her ,arpointing to the tools to a man "ho "ill helpher A the tire "hen she "as suddenly

bumped by a 19K7 +itsubishi an,er drivenby defendant Mi,hard i and registered in thename of defendant >leander ommer,ial)In,. &e,ause of the impa,t plainti@ "asthro"n against the "indshield of the ,ar ofthe defendant) "hi,h "as destroyed) and thenfell to the ground. (he "as pulled out fromunder defendantCs ,ar. 8lainti@s left leg "assevered up to the middle of her thigh) "ithonly some s*in and su,le ,onne,ted to therest of the body. (he "as brought tothe ?RM+ +edi,al +emorial enter "here she"as found to have a traumati, amputation)leg) left up to distal thigh 2above *nee. (he"as ,onAned in the hospital for t"enty 2#0days and "as eventually Atted "ith anartiA,ial leg.

!efendant Mi,hard i denied that he "asnegligent. 4o"ever) the lo"er ,ourt founddefendant Mi,hard i guilty of grossnegligen,e and liable for damages under>rti,le #17D of the ivil ode and held>leander ommer,ial) In,.) iCs employer)

ointly and severally liable for damagespursuant to >rti,le #1K0.

he ourt of >ppeals alternatively) he argues thatin the event that this ourt Ands himnegligent) su,h negligen,e ought to be

mitigated by the ,ontributory negligen,e of/alenuela. Jn the other hand) +a. ourdes/alenuela assails the respondent ,ourtCsde,ision insofar as it absolves >leanderommer,ial) In,. from liability as the o"ner ofthe ,ar driven by Mi,hard i and insofar as itredu,es the amount of the a,tual and moraldamages a"arded by the trial ,ourt.

ISSE

Ehether or not /alenuela "as li*e"ise guilty

of ,ontributory negligen,e in par*ing her ,aralongside >urora &oulevard) "hi,h entire areai points out) is a no par*ing one. -NO

RLING
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/126389.htm#_edn25


12/14

ontributory negligen,e is ,ondu,t on thepart of the inured party) ,ontributing as alegal ,ause to the harm he has su@ered)"hi,h falls belo" the standard to "hi,h he isreuired to ,onform for his o"n prote,tion.

ourts have traditionally been ,ompelled tore,ognie that an a,tor "ho is ,onfronted "ithan emergen,y is not to be held up to thestandard of ,ondu,t normally applied to anindividual "ho is in no su,h situation. he la"ta*es sto,* of impulses of humanity "henpla,ed in threatening or dangerous situationsand does not reuire the same standard ofthoughtful and re=e,tive ,are from persons,onfronted by unusual and oftentimesthreatening ,onditions. ?nder the emergen,y

rule adopted by this ourt in ?an vs Court ofAppeals" an individual "ho suddenly Andshimself in a situation of danger and isreuired to a,t "ithout mu,h time to ,onsiderthe best means that may be adopted to avoidthe impending danger) is not guilty ofnegligen,e if he fails to underta*e "hatsubseuently and upon re=e,tion may appearto be a better solution) unless the emergen,y"as brought by his o"n negligen,e.

Ehile the emergen,y rule applies to those

,ases in "hi,h re=e,tive thought) or theopportunity to adeuately "eigh athreatening situation is absent) the ,ondu,t"hi,h is reuired of an individual in su,h,ases is di,tated not e,lusively by thesuddenness of the event "hi,h absolutelynegates thoughtful ,are) but by the over%allnature of the ,ir,umstan,es. > "oman drivinga vehi,le suddenly ,rippled by a =at tire on arainy night "ill not be faulted for stopping at apoint "hi,h is both ,onvenient for her to do

so and "hi,h is not a haard to othermotorists. (he is not epe,ted to run theentire boulevard in sear,h for a par*ing oneor turn on a dar* (treet or alley "here she"ould li*ely And no one to help her. It "ouldbe haardous for her not to stop and assessthe emergen,y 2simply be,ause the entirelength of >urora &oulevard is a no%par*ingone be,ause the hobbling vehi,le "ould beboth a threat to her safety and to othermotorists. In the instant ,ase) /alenuela)upon rea,hing that portion of >urora

&oulevard ,lose to >. a*e (t.) noti,ed thatshe had a =at tire. o avoid putting herselfand other motorists in danger) she did "hat"as best under the situation.

Jbviously in the ,ase at ben,h) the onlynegligen,e as,ribable "as the negligen,e ofi on the night of the a,,ident. Negligen,e) asit is ,ommonly understood is ,ondu,t "hi,h,reates an undue ris* of harm to others.It isthe failure to observe that degree of ,are)pre,aution) and vigilan,e "hi,h the,ir,umstan,es ustly demand) "hereby su,hother person su@ers inury.

he ,ir,umstan,es established by theeviden,e addu,ed in the ,ourt belo" plainlydemonstrate that i "as grossly negligent indriving his +itsubishi an,er. It bearsemphasis that he "as driving at a fast speedat about #:00 >.+. after a heavy do"npourhad settled into a drile rendering the street

slippery. here is ample testimonial eviden,eon re,ord to sho" that he "as under thein=uen,e of liuor.

ase V #1

+er,ury !rug orp and Molando del Mosario vs (pouses Mi,hardand armen 4uang and (tephen 4uang .M. No. 17#1## Lun## #007

a,ts:

8etitioner +er,ury !rug orporation 2+er,ury !rug is theregistered o"ner of a si%"heeler 1990 +itsubishi ru,* "ithplate number 8MR D$1 2tru,*. It has in its employ petitionerMolando L. del Mosario as driver. Mespondent spouses Mi,hardand armen 4uang are the parents of respondent (tephen4uang and o"n the red 1991 oyota orolla I (edan "ithplate number 8 775 2,ar.

hese t"o vehi,les Agured in a road.

>t the time of the a,,ident) petitioner !el Mosario only had ara,,ording to petitioner !el Mosario) he"as driving on the left innermost lane "hen the ,ar bumpedthe tru,*s front right tire. he tru,* then s"erved to the left)smashed into an ele,tri, post) ,rossed the ,enter island) and


13/14

stopped on the other side of the high"ay. he ,ar li*e"ise,rossed over the ,enter island and landed on the same portionof %5. urther) petitioner +er,ury !rug ,laims that it eer,iseddue diligen,e of a good father of a family in the sele,tion andsupervision of all its employees.

RTC E4RMRJMR) udgment is rendered Anding defendants

+er,ury !rug orporation) In,. and Molando del Mosario) ointlyand severally liable to pay plainti@s (pouses Mi,hard Q. 4uangand armen . 4uang) and (tephen 4uang the follo"ingamounts:

1. "o +illion Nine 4undred(eventy hree housand 8esos28#)973)000.00 a,tualdamagesB

#. >s ,ompensatory damages:

a. "enty hree +illion our4undred (ity Jnehousand) and (ity%"o8esos 28#3)$D1)0D#.00 forlife ,are ,ost of (tephenB

b. en +illion 8esos2810)000)000.00 as and forlost or impaired earning,apa,ity of (tephenB

3. our +illion 8esos28$)000)000.00 as moraldamagesB

$. "o +illion 8esos28#)000)000.00 as eemplarydamagesB and

5. Jne +illion 8esos281)000)000.00 as attorneysfees and litigation epense.

C# aN!J !R MJ(>MIJE>( NRIRN IN !MI/IN 4R M? >4R I+R J >I!RN.

HEL$ %o(h ;'*. SC ar3'" C#.

he eviden,e does not support petitioners ,laim thatat the time of the a,,ident) the tru,* "as at the left inner laneand that it "as respondent (tephen 4uangs ,ar) at its right)"hi,h bumped the right front side of the tru,*. irstly)petitioner !el Mosario ,ould not pre,isely tell "hi,h part of thetru,* "as hit by the ,ar) despite the fa,t that the tru,* "assnub%nosed and a lot higher than the ,ar. 8etitioner !el Mosario,ould not also eplain "hy the ,ar landed on the opposite laneof %5 "hi,h "as on its left side. 4e said that the ,ar did notpass in front of him after it hit him or under him or over him orbehind him. If the tru,* "ere really at the left lane and the ,ar"ere at its right) and the ,ar hit the tru,* at its front right side)the ,ar "ould not have landed on the opposite side) but "ould

have been thro"n to the right side of the %5 4igh"ay.

Eorse still) petitioner !el Mosario further admitted thatafter the impa,t) he lost ,ontrol of the tru,* and failed to applyhis bra*es. onsidering that the ,ar "as smaller and lighterthan the si%"heeler tru,*) the impa,t allegedly ,aused by the,ar "hen it hit the tru,* ,ould not possibly be so great to ,ause

petitioner to lose all ,ontrol that he failed to even step on thebra*es.

Ee therefore And no ,ogent reason to disturb theAndings of the M and the ourt of >ppeals. Th' '+)"'!c'&ro+'* &'()()o!'r $' Ro*ar)o* !')'!c' a* (h' ")r'c(a!" &ro)3a(' ca*' o4 (h' )!r)'* *'r'" :;

r'*&o!"'!( S('&h'! Ha!. P'()()o!'r $' Ro*ar)o4a)'" (o "o ha( a r'a*o!a:' a!" &r"'!( 3a! o"ha+' "o!' !"'r (h' c)rc3*(a!c'*.

J' !o co3' (o (h' )a:))(; o4 &'()()o!'rM'rcr; $r a* '3&o;'r o4 $' Ro*ar)o. >rti,les #17Dand #1K0 of the ivil ode provide:

>rt. #17D. Ehoever by a,t oromission ,auses damage to another) therebeing fault or negligen,e) is obliged to payfor the damage done. (u,h fault ornegligen,e) if there is no pre%eisting,ontra,tual relation bet"een the parties) is,alled a uasi%deli,t and is governed by the

provisions of this hapter.

>rt. #1K0. he obligation imposed byarti,le #17D is demandable not only for oneso"n a,ts or omissions) but also for those ofpersons for "hom one is responsible.

he o"ners and managers of anestablishment or enterprise are li*e"iseresponsible for damages ,aused by theiremployees in the servi,e of the bran,hes in"hi,h the latter are employed or on theo,,asion of their fun,tions.

Th' )a:))(; o4 (h' '3&o;'r !"'r #r(. 2180 o4(h' C)+) Co"' )* ")r'c( or )33'")a('. I( )* !o(co!")()o!'" o! a &r)or r'cor*' aa)!*( (h' !')'!('3&o;'', or a &r)or *ho)! o4 )!*o+'!c; o4 *ch'3&o;''. I( )* a*o o)!( a!" *o)"ar; )(h (h''3&o;''.

o be relieved of liability) petitioner +er,ury !rugshould sho" that it eer,ised the diligen,e of a good father of afamily) both in the sele,tion of the employee and in thesupervision of the performan,e of his duties. hus) in thesele,tion of its prospe,tive employees) the employer isreuired to eamine them as to their ualiA,ations) eperien,e)

and servi,e re,ords. Eith respe,t to the supervision of itsemployees) the employer should formulate standard operatingpro,edures) monitor their implementation) and imposedis,iplinary measures for their brea,h. o establish ,omplian,e"ith these reuirements) employers must submit ,on,reteproof) in,luding do,umentary eviden,e.

In the instant ,ase) petitioner +er,ury !rug presentedtestimonial eviden,e on its hiring pro,edure. >,,ording to +rs.+erlie aami,) the Me,ruitment and raining +anager ofpetitioner +er,ury !rug) appli,ants are reuired to ta*etheoreti,al and a,tual driving tests) and psy,hologi,aleamination. In the ,ase of petitioner !el Mosario) ho"ever)+rs. aami, admitted that he too* the driving tests andpsy,hologi,al eamination "hen he applied for the position of!elivery +an) but not "hen he applied for the position of ru,*

+an. +rs. aami, also admitted that petitioner !el Mosarioused a alant "hi,h is a light vehi,le) instead of a tru,* duringthe driving tests. urther) no tests "ere ,ondu,ted on themotor s*ills development) per,eptual speed) visual attention)depth visualiation) eye and hand ,oordination and steadinessof petitioner !el Mosario. No N&I and poli,e ,learan,es "erealso presented. astly) petitioner !el Mosario attended onlythree driving seminars on Lune 30) #001) ebruary 5) #000 and


14/14

Luly 7) 19K$. In e@e,t) the only seminar he attended before thea,,ident "hi,h o,,urred in 199D "as held t"elve years ago in19K$.

It also appears that petitioner +er,ury !rug does notprovide for a ba,*%up driver for long trips. >t the time of thea,,ident) petitioner !el Mosario has been out on the road for

more than thirteen hours) "ithout any alternate. +rs. aami,testiAed that she does not *no" of any ,ompany poli,yreuiring ba,*%up drivers for long trips.

8etitioner +er,ury !rug li*e"ise failed to sho" that iteer,ised due diligen,e on the supervision and dis,ipline overits employees. In fa,t) on the day of the a,,ident) petitioner !elMosario "as driving "ithout a li,ense. 4e "as holding a /M for

re,*less driving. 4e testiAed that he reported the in,ident tohis superior) but nothing "as done about it. 4e "as notsuspended or reprimanded.No dis,iplinary a,tion "hatsoever"as ta*en against petitioner !el Mosario. J' (h'r'4or' ar3(h' !")! (ha( &'()()o!'r M'rcr; $r ha* 4a)'" (o")*char' )(* :r"'! o4 &ro+)! (ha( )( ''rc)*'" "'"))'!c' )! (h' *''c()o! a!" *&'r+)*)o! o4 )(*'3&o;'', &'()()o!'r $' Ro*ar)o.

M4R> >(R

Torts Digest 6 Inc

Documents

Transcript of Torts Digest 6 Inc