[TORTS: SARAH TALI]

1.pestanovssumayang
FACTS:

AnaniasandManuelwereridingamotorcyclewhentheywerehitbyapassengerbus
beingdrivenbyPestano(petitioner)andownedbyMetroCebubus(petitioner),whichtried
toovertakethemotorcycle
AnaniaspronounceddeadonarrivalManuelsustainedinjuries
ManuelandtheheirsofAnanias
FiledcriminalchargesagainstthedriverPestano
Filedcivilcasefordamagesagainst

pestano,thedriver

metrocebubus,astheownerandoperatorofthebuscompany

perladecompaniadeseguros,asinsurerofmetrocebu
Thetwocaseswereconsolidatedinthelowercourtuponmotion
Respondentsclaimedthat:
Ananiaswasdiligentenoughinmakingasignalwiththebusdriverthroughhisleft
armindicatingthattheywillbeturninglefthoweverwhentheyturnedleftthe
overspeedingbusbumpedthemcausingthelifeofAnaniasandinjuriesofManuel.
PestanoblamedAnaniasfortheaccident:
statingthathemadethenecessaryprecautioninovertakingthemotorcyclebyblowing
hishorntwice,

hefirstblewthehornwhenthebuswasabout15to20metersawayfromthe
motorcycleandwenttotherightsideofthehighway

thenheagainblewthehornandacceleratedinordertoovertakethemotorcycle

BUTthemotorcyclesuddenlyturnedleftcausingtheaccident.
LOWERCOURT:infavoroftherespondents
pestanoisnegligentindrivingthebusthathitthedeceased
MetroCebuDIRECTLYANDPRIMARYLIABLEtogetherwithPestano,under
article2180ofthecivilcode

itfailedtoestablishedthatithadobservethediligenceofagoodfatherofa
familytopreventthedamage
CAAffirmed

ISSUE:
1. whetherornotthenegligenceofthedriveristheproximatecauseoftheaccident?
2. whetherornotthemetrocebubedirectlyandprimaryliableforthedamagesincurred
byPestano?
RULING:
1.

4.CarticianovsNuval
Toholdanemployerliableforthenegligentactsoftheemployee,itisenoughtoprovethatthe
latterwashiredtodrivetheformersmotorvehicle.Itisnotnecessarytoshow,inaddition,that
theemployerschildrenwereaboardthejeepwhentheaccidenthappened.Oncethedriveris
showntobenegligent,theburdenofprooftofreetheemployerfromliabilityshiftstothelatter.
Facts:
PlaintiffZacariasCarticianowasonhiswayhometoImus,Cavite.Hewasdrivinghisfathers
FordLasercar.Onthesamedateandtime,defendantNuvalsownertypeJeep,thendrivenby
defendantDarwinwastravelingontheoppositedirectiongoingtoParaaque.Whenthetwo
carswereabouttopassoneanother,Darwinveeredhisvehicletohisleftgoingtothecenter
islandofthehighwayanoccupiedthelanewhichplaintiffZacariaswastraversing.Zacarias
Ford Laser collided headon with Nuvals Jeep. Darwin immediately fled from the scene.
Zacariassufferedmultiplefracture.Heunderwentalegoperationandphysicaltherapy.Nuval
offered P100,000.00as compensationfor theinjuries caused. Plaintiffsrefused toaccept it.
PlaintiffsfiledacriminalsuitagainstDarwinandacivilsuitagainstdefendants(Nuval)for
damages.
Plaintiffcontention:

theproximatecauseoftheaccidentisdefendantsDarwinrecklessnessindrivingdefendant
Nuvalsjeep?thatonaccountofsaidrecklessnessofdefendantDarwin,plaintiffsuffered
damages? that defendant Darwin was an employee of defendant Nuval at the time of
accident?thatdefendantNuvaldidnotexerciseduediligenceinthesupervisionofhis
employee?thatdefendantsshouldheheldliablefordamages.
Respondentcontention:

Respondentmaintainsthatonthedatetheaccidenthappened,Darwinwasnolongerhis
employeebecausethelattersserviceshadalreadybeenterminated.NuvaladdsthatDarwin
washiredforaperiodofonlyfourtosixdays. To substantiate this claim, theformer
presented payroll and employment records showing that the latter was no longer his
employee.
Issue:
1. WhetherornotDarwininanemployeeofNuval
2. whetherornotNuvalisliableforthedamagesincurredbyDarwinincasethelatteris
proventobeanemployee?
Ruling:
1.yes,DarwinisanemployeeofNuval
TheonlyproofproferredbyRespondentNuvaltoshowthatDarwinwasnolongerhisemployee
was the payroll in which the latters name was not included. However, as revealed by the
testimoniesofthewitnessespresentedduringtrial,respondenthadotheremployeesworkingfor
himwhowerenotlistedinthepayrolleither.
TherathereasyaccesswhichDarwinhadtothekeystothevehicleofNuvalfurtherweakened
the latters cause. First, nobody questioned the fact that the former had freely entered
respondentshousewherethekeystothevehiclewerekept. ThetheoryofNuvalthatDarwin
musthavestolenthekeysaswellasthevehicleisratherfarfetchedandnotsupportedbyany
proofwhatsoever. Itisobviouslyanafterthoughtconcoctedtopresentsomesemblanceofa
defense.Second,bothrespondentandhisemployeeswhotestifieddidnotactasifthevehicle

[TORTS: SARAH TALI]

hadbeenstolen.Hehadnotreportedtheallegedtheftofhisvehicle.Neitherdidhesearchnor
askhisemployees
tosearchforthesupposedlystolenvehicle.Infact,hetestifiedthathisemployeeshadtoldhim
thatthekeysandthevehiclehadmerely"probably"beenstolenbyDarwin.

2.yes,NuvalisliableforthjedamagesincurredbyDarwinundervicariousliability.
underarticle2180
The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for ones own acts or
omissions,butalsoforthoseofpersonsforwhomoneisresponsible.
xxxxxxx
"Employersshallbeliableforthedamagescausedbytheiremployeesandhouseholdhelpers
actingwithinthescopeoftheirassignedtasks,eventhoughtheformerarenotengagedinany
businessorindustry.
xxxxxxxxxxx
ThefactsestablishedinthecaseatbarshowthatDarwinwasactingwithinthescope
oftheauthoritygivenhimwhenthecollisionoccurred.Thathehadbeenhiredonlytobring
respondentschildrentoandfromschoolmustberejected.True,thismayhavebeenoneofhis
assignedtasks,butnoconvincingproofwaspresentedshowingthatitwashisonlytask.His

authoritywastodriveNuvalsvehicle.Thirdpartiesarenotboundbytheallegationthatthe
driverwasauthorizedtooperatethejeeponlywhentheemployerschildrenwereonboardthe
vehicle.Givingcredencetothisoutlandishtheorywouldenableemployerstoescapetheirlegal
liabilitieswithimpunity.Suchloopholeiseasytoconcoctandissimplyunacceptable.
Theclaimofrespondentthathehadexercisedthediligenceofagoodfatherofa
familyisnotborneoutbytheevidence.Neitherisitsupportedbylogic.Hismaindefensethatat
thetimeoftheaccidentDarwinwasnolongerhisemployee,havingbeenmerelyhiredforafew
days,isinconsistentwithhisotherargumentofduediligenceintheselectionofanemployee.

Onceadriverisprovennegligentincausingdamages,thelawpresumesthevehicle
ownerequallynegligentandimposesuponthelattertheburdenofprovingproperselectionof
employeeasadefense.14Respondentfailedtoshowthathehadsatisfactorilydischargedthis
burden.
note:
NoProofofContributoryNegligence
Respondent Nuvals accusation that Petitioner Zacarias Carticiano is guilty of contributory
negligencebyfailingtostophiscarortoevadetheoncomingjeepisuntenable.Boththetrial
and the appellate courts found that the accident was caused by the fact that Darwins jeep
suddenlyveeredtowardsZacariaslanewhenthevehicleswereabouttopasseachother,thus
makingitdifficultifnotimpossibleforpetitionertoavoidtheheadoncollission.