11. Filcar Transport Services v.
Espinas (Vi) FACTS:
June 20, 2012|Brion, J. | Vicarious – Owners and Managers
PETITIONER: Filcar Transport Services
RESPONDENTS: Jose A. Espinas
SUMMARY: On November 22, 1998, at around 6:30 p.m., Espinas was
driving his car along Leon Guinto Street in Manila. Upon reaching the
intersection of Leon Guinto and President Quirino Streets, Espinas stopped
his car. When the signal light turned green, he proceeded to cross the
intersection. He was already in the middle of the intersection when another
car, traversing President Quirino Street and going to Roxas Boulevard,
suddenly hit and bumped his car. As a result of the impact, Espinas' car
turned clockwise and the other car escaped after but he was able to get the
plate no.. The registered owner of the car was Filcar. Filcar said that the car
was assigned to Atty. Flor (Corp Sec) and when it happened, the one driving
was Floresca, Atty. Flor’s driver. Thus, it should not be held liable since
Floresca is Atty. Flor’s employee and not Filcar’s. ISSUE: Whether Filcar
is liable for damages – YES. Filcar, as the registered owner, is deemed
the employer of Floresca, and is vicariously liable under Art. 2176 in
relation with Art. 2180 (employers liable for negligent acts of
employees). SC said that in case of motor vehicle mishaps, the registered
owner of the motor vehicle is considered as the employer of the
tortfeasor-driver, and is made primarily liable for the tort committed by
the latter. The Court said in Equitable Leasing v. Suyom that as far as third
persons are concerned, the registered owner of the motor vehicle is the
employer of the negligent driver, and the actual employer is considered
merely as an agent of such owner.
Rationale for holding registered owner vicariously liable - The main aim
of motor vehicle registration is to identify the owner so that if any
accident happens, or that any damage or injury is caused by the vehicle
on the public highways, responsibility therefore can be fixed on a
definite individual, the registered owner.”
General Public Policy: Protection of 3rd person who have no means to
identify public road malefactors and cannot seek redress for damages.
Filcar’s recourse is to go against the true employer and driver to prevent
unjust enrichment.
DOCTRINE:.
As far as third persons are concerned, the registered owner of the motor
vehicle is the employer of the negligent driver, and the actual employer
is considered merely as an agent of such owner.
1. On November 22, 1998, at around 6:30 p.m., Espinas was driving his car
along Leon Guinto Street in Manila. Upon reaching the intersection of
Leon Guinto and President Quirino Streets, Espinas stopped his car.
When the signal light turned green, he proceeded to cross the
intersection. He was already in the middle of the intersection when
another car, traversing President Quirino Street and going to Roxas
Boulevard, suddenly hit and bumped his car. As a result of the impact,
Espinas' car turned clockwise. The other car escaped from the scene of
the incident, but Espinas was able to get its plate number (UCF-545).
After inquiring with LTO, he found out that the owner is Filcar.
2. Espinas demanded payment of damages and sent several letters to Filcar
and its President and General Manager, Carmen Flor. He filed a
complaint for damages with the MeTC of Manila, Branch 13. He
demanded P97,910 for actual damages.
3. Filcar: It is the registered owner but the car was assigned to its Corporate
Secretary Atty. Candido Flor, husband of Carmen Flor. When it
happened, the car was being driven by Atty. Flor's personal driver,
Timoteo Floresca. Filcar denied any liability to Espinas and claimed that
the incident was not due to its fault or negligence since Floresca was not
its employee but that of Atty. Flor.
4. Atty. Flor: When it occurred, he was attending a birthday celebration at
a nearby hotel, and it was only later that night when he noticed a small
dent on and the cracked signal light of the car. Atty. Flor allegedly asked
Floresca what happened, and the driver replied that it was a result of a
"hit and run" while the car was parked in front of Bogota on Pedro Gil
Avenue, Manila.
5. Filcar and Carmen Flor both said that they always exercised the due
diligence required of a good father of a family in leasing or assigning
their vehicles to third parties.
6. MeTC Decision: It ruled in favor of Espinas, and ordered Filcar and
Carmen Flor, jointly and severally, to pay Espinas P97,910.00 as actual
damages with 6% interest per annum, P50,000.00 as moral damages,
P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P20,000.00 as attorney's fees.
The MeTC ruled that Filcar, as the registered owner of the vehicle, is
primarily responsible for damages resulting from the vehicle's operation.
7. RTC: RTC Manila, Branch 20 affirmed the MeTC decision. The RTC
ruled that Filcar failed to prove that Floresca was not its employee as no
proof was adduced that Floresca was personally hired by Atty. Flor. The
 RTC agreed that the registered owner of a vehicle is directly and
primarily liable for the damages sustained by third persons as a
consequence of the negligent or careless operation of a vehicle registered
in its name. The RTC added that the victim of recklessness on the public
highways is without means to discover or identify the person actually
causing the injury or damage. Thus, the only recourse is to determine the
owner, through the vehicle's registration, and to hold him responsible for
the damages.
8. CA: Modified RTC decision ruling that Carmen is not personally liable
because a corporation has a separate personality from its officers. But
CA affirmed liability of Filcar to pay because even if there is no
employer-employee relationship with Floresca, it is liable under the
registered owner rule where the registered owner of a vehicle is directly
and primarily responsible to the public and third persons.
9. The rationale behind the registered owner ule is to avoid circumstances
where vehicles running on public highways cause accidents or injuries
to pedestrians or other vehicles without positive identification of the
owner or drivers, or with very scant means of identification. The main
aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify the owner, so that if a
vehicle causes damage or injury to pedestrians or other vehicles,
responsibility can be traced to a definite individual and that individual is
the registered owner. CA cited the case of Villanueva v. Domingo where
the Court said that the question of whether the driver was authorized by
the actual owner is irrelevant in determining the primary and direct
responsibility of the registered owner.
ISSUE:
1. Whether Filcar may be held liable for the damages – YES
RATIO:
1. Filcar, as the registered owner, is deemed the employer of
Floresca, and is vicariously liable under Art. 2176 in relation
with Art. 2180.
2. The SC held Filcar liable because it was the registered owner. Gen
Rule: One is responsible for his own act/omission based on Art.
2176 but there are exceptions. One exception is an employer who is
made vicariously liable for the tort committed by his employee.
Article 2180 of the Civil Code states “Employers shall be liable for
the damages caused by their employees and household helpers
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the
former are not engaged in any business or industry” and that “The
responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons
herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent damage.” So, an action for the
negligence of an employee can be instituted against the employer
who is held liable for the negligence of the employee.
3. Although the employer is not the actual tortfeasor, the law makes
him vicariously liable on the basis of the civil law principle of
pater familias for failure to exercise due care and vigilance over
the acts of one's subordinates to prevent damage to another. In
the last paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the employer
may invoke the defense that he observed all the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damage.
4. Filcar contends that Art. 2176, in relation with Art. 2180 is
inapplicable because it presupposes the existence of an employer-
employee relationship. The driver of its vehicle at the time of the
accident, Floresca, is not its employee but that of Atty. Flor. SC
didn’t agree saying and explained that in case of motor vehicle
mishaps, the registered owner of the motor vehicle is considered
as the employer of the tortfeasor-driver, and is made primarily
liable for the tort committed by the latter.
5. Equitable Leasing Corp v. Suyom – The Court in this case said that
as far as third persons are concerned, the registered owner of the
motor vehicle is the employer of the negligent driver, and the
actual employer is considered merely as an agent of such owner.
In this case, a tractor in the name of Equitable Leasing was leased
to Mr. Lim and was sold to Ecatine Corp. When it was in an
accident, Equitable said it can’t be held liable because it was already
sold to Ecatine and the driver was Ecatine’s employee but the Court
held Equitable liable because “regardless of sales made of a motor
vehicle, the registered owner is the lawful operator insofar as
the public and third persons are concerned; consequently, it is
directly and primarily responsible for the consequences of its
operation” and that "in contemplation of law, the
owner/operator of record is the employer of the driver, the
actual operator and employer being considered as merely its
merely its agent.” So Equitable, as the registered owner of the
tractor, was considered to be the employer of the driver, Raul Tutor;
Ecatine, Tutor's actual employer, was deemed merely as an agent of
Equitable.
6. Rationale for holding registered owner vicariously liable – Based
on the principle behind motor vehicle registration, discussed by this
 Court in Erezo is that “The main aim of motor vehicle registration the registered owner of the motor vehicle has a right to be
is to identify the owner so that if any accident happens, or that indemnified by the actual employer of the driver of the amount that
any damage or injury is caused by the vehicle on the public he may be required to pay as damages for the injury caused to
highways, responsibility therefore can be fixed on a definite another.
individual, the registered owner.”
7. Whether there is an employer-employee relationship between the
registered owner and the driver is irrelevant in determining the
liability of the registered owner who the law holds primarily and
directly responsible for any accident, injury or death caused by the
operation of the vehicle in the streets and highways.
8. General Public Policy: Protection of 3rd person who have no means
to identify public road malefactors and cannot seek redress for
damages.
9. This would also prevent a situation where a registered owner of a
motor vehicle can easily escape liability by passing on the blame to
another who may have no means to answer for the damages caused,
thereby defeating the claims of victims of road accidents. The Court
took note that some motor vehicles running on our roads are driven
not by their registered owners, but by employed drivers who do not
have the financial means to pay for the damages caused in case of
accidents.
10. Filcar cannot use the defenses under Article 2180 — that the
employee acts beyond the scope of his assigned task or that it
exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
damage — because the motor vehicle registration law, to a
certain extent, modified Article 2180 of the Civil Code by
making these defenses unavailable to the registered owner of the
motor vehicle. Thus, for as long as Filcar is the registered owner of
the car involved in the vehicular accident, it could not escape
primary liability for the damages caused to Espinas.
11. While Republic Act No. 4136 or the Land Transportation and
Traffic Code does not contain any provision on the liability of
registered owners in case of motor vehicle mishaps, Article 2176, in
relation with Article 2180, imposes an obligation upon Filcar, as
registered owner, to answer for the damages caused to Espinas. This
interpretation is consistent with the strong public policy of
maintaining road safety, thereby reinforcing the aim of the State to
promote the responsible operation of motor vehicles by its citizens.
12. Filcar’s recourse is against the actual employer of the driver and the
driver himself. Under the civil law principle of unjust enrichment,