Gloria Supermarket Inc.

did not exercise proper diligence in

making its premises safe for its customers.

Diligence is the attention and care required of a person in a given

situation and is the opposite of negligence1. Mr. Rene Castro, the
supermarket supervisor of Gloria Supermart, Inc. orally asserted that
they exercised proper diligence in making its premises safe to customers,
as stated in the cross-examination.

There is a presumption in our law, that when an injury is caused

by the negligence of an employee, the employer was also negligent. As
held in Syki vs. Begasa2:

From the above provision, when an injury is caused by the

negligence of an employee, a legal presumption instantly arises
that the employer was negligent in the selection and/or
supervision of said employee. The said presumption may be
rebutted only by a clear showing on the part of the employer that
he exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of his employee. If the employer
successfully overcomes the legal presumption of negligence, he is
relieved of liability. |

In other words, the burden of proof is on the employer. The

employer must rebut the presumption this with a clear evidence that
they exerted proper diligence in selection and supervision.

In Metro Manila Transit Corporation vs. Court of Appeals3, the

employer must not merely present testimonial evidence to prove that he
observed the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
supervision of his employee, but he must also support such testimonial
evidence with concrete or documentary evidence. The reason for this is

1
Sambijon vs Suing, 2006, 503 SCRA 1
2
G.R. No. 149149, October 23, 2003
3
223 SCRA 521 [1993]
to obviate the biased nature of the employer's testimony or that of his
witnesses.|

Mr. Castro, the supervisor is tasked to discharge supervision over

its employees. The lone testimony of the supervisor is insufficient to
overcome the legal presumption. There were no clear evidence that
supports his allegation that it was the puddle of syrup and the accident
was on the fault of the child. His inference also does not hold any water,
that convinces us that it was the child’s reckless behavior and not
another person that bumped the shelf, caused the puddle of syrup and
further resulting to the child’s accident. The biased nature of the
supervisor’s testimony was not yet remove as there was no other
evidence that supports his testimony. The supervisor did not even
bother to take a picture of the scene, where his inference of the
happening lies, to corroborate further his testimony and to remove the
bias of his testimony.

The said legal presumption of negligence on the part of the

employee and employer was not sufficiently rebutted.

While it may be said that the defendant exercised proper diligence

on the selection of its employees in the supermarket. The diligence of a
good father of a family, which the law requires in order to avoid
damage, is not confined to the careful and prudent selection of
subordinates or employees but includes inspection of their work and
supervision of the discharge of their duties4.

In the present case, the defendant did not show proper diligence
when it did not took the proper action on the puddle syrup on the floor
that caused the injury suffered by the plaintiff’s child. There should
always be a standby employee to check aisles to prevent not only
situations like these, but also to similar ones that may result to injury. If
there had been an employee who responded to clean the puddle and

4
Lilius vs. Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No. 39587, March 24, 1934, 59 PHIL 758-768
placed a warning sign to indicate customers to exercise caution when
passing, this unfortunate incident would not have happened.

The untimely action of defendant’s employees to clean and

exercise proper precaution in the case is an illustration of the employer
being negligent on supervising the work of its employees. The employer
must oversee the acts of its employee to ensure that the acts they are
executing are proper. This act of the employer was lacking as stated in
the direct examination of the mother of the injured child.

There was a leak in a syrup bottle that caused the puddle of liquid
on the ground and there were no employees nearby that could have
prevented it, disposed of the leaking syrup bottle and clean the puddle
of liquid that resulted to the injury of the child. Should the employer
more prudent, there would be no leaking syrup bottle if they had
checked that it was still sealed or there would have been no accident if
there was a timely action by the employees to clean the area.

This unfortunate event would not happen, if the defendant

properly executed due diligence in supervising its employees. Gloria
Marketing, Inc. did not exercised proper diligence in making its
premises safe.