Professional Documents
Culture Documents
vs.
GERONIMO BACOY
G.R. No. 173870. April 25, 2012
FACTS:
Spouses Emilia Bacoy Monsalud and Leonardo Monsalud, Sr. and
their daughter Glenda Monsalud, were run over by a Fuso passenger
jeep driven by Allan Maglasang and was registered in the name of
petitioner. Consequently, a case was filed against Allan for Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Multiple Homicide before the RTC, which said
court declared Allan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged.
During the pendency of said criminal case, Emilias father,
Geronimo Bacoy filed an independent civil action for damages based
on culpa aquiliana to Allan and the petitioner. Defendants refused to
assume civil liability for the victims deaths. Petitioner averred that the
Monsaluds have no cause of action against them because Allan was
not their employee anymore and the jeep was stolen when the incident
happened. The RTC absolved the petitioner from all civil liability but
was reversed by the CA.
ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner is liable for damages under the doctrine
of res ipsa loquitur.
RULING:
The SC held the petitioner liable for quasi-delict resulting from
his jeeps use, as all requisites under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
are
present.
First,
no
person
just
walking along the road would suddenly be sideswiped and run
over
by an on-rushing vehicle unless the one in charge of the said vehicle
had been negligent. Second, the jeep which caused the injury was
under the exclusive control of petitioner as its owner. When petitioner
entrusted the ignition key to Rodrigo (Allans friend), he had the power
to instruct him with regard to the specific restrictions of the jeeps use,
including who or who may not drive it. As he is aware that the jeep
may run without the ignition key, he also has the responsibility to park
it safely and securely and to instruct his driver Rodrigo to observe the
same precaution. Lastly, there was no showing that the death of the
victims was due to any voluntary action or contribution on their part.
The aforementioned requisites having been met, there now
arises a presumption of negligence against the petitioner, which he
could have overcome by evidence that he exercised due care and
diligence in preventing strangers from using his jeep. Absent the
circumstance of unauthorized use or that the subject vehicle was
stolen which are valid defenses available to a registered owner, the
petitioner cannot escape his civil liability on this present case.