Laws & Jurisprudence
Employers Are Liable For The Damages Caused By Their Employees
10:03 PM
Loreta,
after having alighted from a passenger bus, was hit and run over by a
bus driven by Gimena, who was then employed by petitioner R Transport
Corporation. Loreta was immediately rushed to the hospital where she
was pronounced dead on arrival. As testified by the police officer
on duty at the time of the incident and indicated in the Autopsy
Report, the deceased’s clothes were ripped off from her body, her
brain even spewed out from her skull and spilled over the road. The
bus driven by Gimena bumped the deceased in a loading and unloading
area of a commercial center.
The
husband of the deceased, respondent Luisito, filed a Complaint for
damages before the RTC against petitioner R Transport, Gimena, and
Metro Manila Transport Corporation (MMTC) for the death of his wife.
MMTC
denied its liability reasoning that it is merely the registered owner
of the bus involved in the incident, the actual owner, being
petitioner R Transport. Since it was not actually operating the bus
which killed respondent’s wife, nor was it the employer of the
driver thereof, MMTC alleged that the complaint against it should be
dismissed. For its part, petitioner R Transport alleged that
respondent had no cause of action against it for it had exercised due
diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees and
drivers and that its buses are in good condition. Meanwhile, the
driver Gimena was declared in default for his failure to file an
answer to the complaint.
After
trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of
respondent Luisito ruling that petitioner R Transport failed to prove
that it exercised the diligence required of a good father of a family
in the selection and supervision of its driver. The RTC ordered
defendants R Transport and Metro Manila Transport Corporation (MMTC)
to be primarily and solidarily liable and defendant Gimena
subsidiarily liable to plaintiff Luisito. The CA affirmed the
Decision of the RTC with modification that defendant Antonio Gimena
is made solidarily liable for the damages caused to respondent.
ISSUE:
Is
the petitioner liable for the damages caused by its employee?
RULING:
The
petitioner is liable for the damages caused by its employee. Negligence
has been defined as "the failure to observe for the protection
of the interests of another person that degree of care, precaution,
and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such
other person suffers injury." Verily, foreseeability is the
fundamental test of negligence. It is the omission to do something
which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which
ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the
doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
Under
Article 2180 of the New Civil Code, employers are liable for the
damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks. Once negligence on the part of the employee is
established, a presumption instantly arises that the employer was
remiss in the selection and/or supervision of the negligent employee.
To avoid liability for the quasi-delict committed by its employee, it
is incumbent upon the employer to rebut this presumption by
presenting adequate and convincing proof that it exercised the care
and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
supervision of its employees.
Unfortunately,
however, the records of this case are bereft of any proof showing the
exercise by petitioner of the required diligence. As aptly observed
by the CA, no evidence of whatever nature was ever presented
depicting petitioner’s due diligence in the selection and
supervision of its driver, Gimena, despite several opportunities to
do so. In fact, in its petition, apart from denying the negligence of
its employee and imputing the same to the bus from which the victim
alighted, petitioner merely reiterates its argument that since it is
not the registered owner of the bus which bumped the victim, it
cannot be held liable for the damage caused by the same. Nowhere was
it even remotely alleged that petitioner had exercised the required
diligence in the selection and supervision of its employee. Because
of this failure, petitioner cannot now avoid liability for the
quasi-delict committed by its negligent employee.
G.R.
No. 174161, February 18, 2015
R
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. LUISITO G. YU,
Respondent.
PERALTA,
J.:
The author takes no responsibility for the validity, correctness and result of this work. The information provided is not a legal advice and it should not be used as a substitute for a competent legal advice from a licensed lawyer. See the disclaimer
0 comments