Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Mendoza v. Soriano

    Uploaded by

    Trixie Mariano
    296 views1 page
    Flordeliza Mendoza was found liable for damages caused by the death of Sonny Soriano, who was hit by a speeding FX vehicle driven by Mendoza's employee, Macasasa. According to the Supreme Court decision, under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are presumed negligent and liable for damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their tasks, unless they can prove they exercised due diligence in supervising their employees to prevent damages. The court determined Mendoza failed to prove she exercised due diligence in supervising Macasasa. While Sonny was found partially negligent for not using a pedestrian overpass, this only served to mitigate damages rather than absolve liability.

    Original Description:

    tort

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Flordeliza Mendoza was found liable for damages caused by the death of Sonny Soriano, who was hit by a speeding FX vehicle driven by Mendoza's employee, Macasasa. According to the Supreme Court decision, under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are presumed negligent and liable for damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their tasks, unless they can prove they exercised due diligence in supervising their employees to prevent damages. The court determined Mendoza failed to prove she exercised due diligence in supervising Macasasa. While Sonny was found partially negligent for not using a pedestrian overpass, this only served to mitigate damages rather than absolve liability.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    296 views1 page

    Mendoza v. Soriano

    Uploaded by

    Trixie Mariano
    Flordeliza Mendoza was found liable for damages caused by the death of Sonny Soriano, who was hit by a speeding FX vehicle driven by Mendoza's employee, Macasasa. According to the Supreme Court decision, under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are presumed negligent and liable for damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their tasks, unless they can prove they exercised due diligence in supervising their employees to prevent damages. The court determined Mendoza failed to prove she exercised due diligence in supervising Macasasa. While Sonny was found partially negligent for not using a pedestrian overpass, this only served to mitigate damages rather than absolve liability.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Mendoza v.

    Soriano
    G.R. No. 164012 Date: June 08, 2007

    petitioners respondents summary

    Flordeliza Mendoza, petitioner Mutya Soriano & Julie Ann Soriano (minor), respondents

    (HIT & RUN) Sonny was crossing Commonwealth Avenue when he was hit was an over-speeding FX. Mendoza, the owner of the FX, is liable because employers are liable for the damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks.
    facts of the case

    Sonny Soriano was hit by the speeding FX driven by Macasasa as he was crossing Commonwealth Avenue. He was thrown 5M away and the FX was only able to stop at around 25M away from the point of impact. Villasapin, one of Sorianos companions, asked Macasasa to bring him to a hospital but he only returned to the FX and sped away. Soriano was brought to East Avenue Medical Center by a school bus, where he later died. A criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting to homicide was filed against Macasasa. Mutya and Julie Ann, wife and daughter, filed a complaint for damages against Macasasa and Mendoza (registered owner of the FX). DEFENSE of Mendoza: Cannot be held liable, exercised the diligence of a good father of a family. RTC: Dismissed. Sonny was negligent in crossing instead of using the overpass to get across. CA: Reversed. Macasasa was negligent for speeding and fleeing the scene of the crime (Article 2185). Sonnys own negligence does not preclude recovery of damages from Macasasas negligence. Art 2180: Presumption of Negligence of the Employers in the selection and supervision
    Issue/s Ratio

    W/N Soriano can be held liable for damages for the death of Sonny. YES.

    Under Article 2180: Employers are liable for the damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. This liability arises due to the presumed negligence in their supervision of their employees unless they can prove that they exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. Mendoza is directly and separately liable for her failure to exercise due diligence in supervising Macasasa. She had been unable to prove that she had exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in supervising Macasasa. Note: the contributory negligence of Sonny for not using the pedestrian overpass only serves as a mitigating circumstance. (Article 2179)

    You might also like