Pestano v Sumayang

GR No. 139875
December 4, 2000
Facts: Sumayang, accompanied by another
person, was riding a motor vehicle on a highway
in Cebu. While turning left at a junction,
Sumayang was violently hit by a speeding bus
driven by Pestano. Sumayang and his companion
died due to the accident. The heirs of Sumayang
filed a civil action against Pestano and Metro
Cebu Bus Company, the owner of the Bus driven
by Pestano. A witness named Neis accounts that
before Sumayang turned left, the former had
raised his left arm as a signal but was run over by
the bus and was thrown 14 meters away. Pestano
alleges the victims were negligent because 15-20
meters away, he had already blown the bus horn
and even blew it a second time when he got near
but could only step on the brake after the bus
had hid the motor vehicle. RTC and CA held
Pestano liable and also held Metro Cebu Bus
liable for negligence.
Issue: W/N Metro Cebu Bus may be held liable for
the acts of Pestano
Held: There were factual findings that the bus had
a defective speedometer and the Company was
held to have shown laxity in the conduct of its
operations and supervision of employees. Under
Articles 2180 and 2176 of the Civil Code, owners
and managers are responsible for damages
caused by their employees. When an injury is
caused by the negligence of a servant or an
employee, the master or employer is presumed
to be negligent either in the selection or in the
supervision of that employee. This presumption
may be overcome only by satisfactorily showing
that the employer exercised the care and the
diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and the supervision of its employee.
The CA said that allowing Pestao to ply his route
with a defective speedometer showed laxity on
the part of Metro Cebu in the operation of its
business and in the supervision of its
employees. The negligence alluded to here is in
its supervision over its driver, not in that which
directly caused the accident. The fact that
Pestao was able to use a bus with a faulty
speedometer shows that Metro Cebu was remiss
in the supervision of its employees and in the
proper care of its vehicles. It had thus failed to
conduct its business with the diligence required
by law.
Real v Belo
G.R. NO. 146224
January 26, 2007

Facts: Petitioner owned and operated the Wasabe

Fastfood stall located at the Food Center of the
Philippine Women's University (PWU) along Taft
Avenue, Malate, Manila. Sisenando H. Belo
(respondent) owned and operated the BS Masters
fastfood stall, also located at the Food Center of
PWU.
Around 7:00 o'clock in the morning, a fire broke
out at petitioner's Wasabe Fastfood stall. The fire
spread and gutted other fastfood stalls in the
area, including respondent's stall. An
investigation on the cause of the fire by Fire
Investigator SFO1 Arnel C. Pinca (Pinca) revealed
that the fire broke out due to the leaking fumes
coming from the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)
stove and tank installed at petitioner's stall. For
the loss of his fastfood stall due to the fire,
respondent demanded compensation from
petitioner. However, petitioner refused to accede
to respondent's demand.
Hence, respondent filed a complaint for damages
against petitioner before the Metropolitan Trial
Court. Respondent alleged that petitioner failed
to exercise due diligence in the upkeep and
maintenance of her cooking equipments, as well
as the selection and supervision of her
employees; that petitioner's negligence was the
proximate cause of the fire that gutted the
fastfood stalls. Petitioner denied liability and
contends that she exercised due diligence in the
selection and supervision of her employees.
After trial, the MeTC rendered its Decision in favor
of the respondent. Upon motion to the RTC, RTC
holds that it cannot disregard evidence showing
that the fire originated from petitioner's fastfood
stall. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review
with the CA which denied petitioners motion on
procedural defect. Hence this petition. But for
purposes of discussion, we would address the
issue raised in the RTC.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner is liable for the
damages caused by the fire which originated
from petitioner's fastfood stall.
Ruling: The Civil Code provides:
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176
is demandable not only for one's own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom
one is responsible.
xxxx
The owners and managers of an establishment or
enterprise are likewise responsible for damages
caused by their employees in the service of the

branches in which the latter are employed or on

the occasion of their functions.
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.
In this case, petitioner not only failed to show
that she submitted proof that the LPG stove and
tank in her fastfood stall were maintained in good
condition and periodically checked for defects but
she also failed to submit proof that she exercised
the diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of her employees. For
failing to prove care and diligence in the
maintenance of her cooking equipment and in the
selection and supervision of her employees, the
necessary inference was that petitioner had been
negligent. Thus, the petition is granted.
CASTILEX v VASQUEZ
Facts : On Aug 28,1988 around 1:30-2:00 am,
Romeo Vasquez was driving his motorcycle
around Osmena Rotunda in the normal flow of
traffic and collided with the company pick-up of
Castilex driven by Abad who was going against
the normal flow of traffic in the same rotunda.
Vasquez died at the Hospital on Sept 5. Abad
signed an acknowledgment of responsible party
wherein he would pay all the expenses
Vasquezs parents commenced an action for
damages against Abad and castilex.
TC held that both must pay jointly and solidarily
CA affirmed but held that the liability of Castilex
is only vicarious and not solidary
ISSUE: WON an employer may be held vicariously
liable for the death resulting from negligent
operation by a managerial employee of a
company-owned vehicle
HELD: Art 2180 par 5 WON engaged in any
business or industry, an employer is liable for the
torts committed by employees within the scope
of his assigned tasks. But it is necessary to first
establish the employee-employer relationship.
Then the plaintiff must show, to hold employer
liable, that the employee was acting within the
scope of his assigned task when the tort
complained of was committed. It is only then that
the employer can interpose the defense of due
diligence in the selection and supervision of its
employee.

In the case at bar, it is undisputed that Abad was

a production manager of Castilex. At the night of
the incident, he did some overtime work at
petitioners office. Thereafter, he went to a
restaurant at a place known as a haven for
prostitutes, pimps and drug pushers and addicts
The court finds that Abad was engaged in affairs
of his own or was carrying out personal purpose
not in line with his duties at the time he figured in
a vehicular accident. it was 2 am and beyond
normal working hours. His overtime had ended.
Since there is a paucity of evidence that Abad
was acting within the scope of his functions
entrusted to him, castilex had no duty to show
that it exercised the diligence of a good father of
a family in providing Abad with a service vehicle.
Thus, Justice and equity require that Castilex be
relieved of vicarious liability for the consequences
of the negligence of Abad in driving its vehicle.
Castilex v Vasquez
SUMMARY: Abad, manager of Castilex Industrial
Corporation, was on his way home in a companyissued car from a place notorious as haven for
prostitutes, pimps, and drug pushers and addicts,
when he took a shortcut and went against the
flow of traffic. In the process, he collided with
Vasquez, who was on his motorcycle. Vasquez
subsequently died. An action for damages was
filed by his parents. Trial court and CA found Abad
and his employer CASTILEX liable, the latter
under Art. 2180 par. 5. CASTILEX appealed to SC
on the ground that Abad was not acting within
the scope of his employment when the collision
occurred but for personal reasons.
SC: absolved the company from liability, ruling
that Abad was not acting within the scope of the
functions entrusted to him when the incident
happened. As such, its burden to prove that it
was diligent did not arise.
DOCTRINE:
A distinction must be made between the two
provisions to determine what is applicable.
Both provisions apply to employers:
*the fourth paragraph, to owners and managers
of an establishment or enterprise; and the fifth
paragraph, to employers in general, whether or
not engaged in any business or industry.
*The fourth paragraph covers negligent acts of
employees committed either in the service of the
branches or on the occasion of their functions,
while the fifth paragraph encompasses negligent

acts of employees acting within the scope of

their assigned task.
The latter is an expansion of the former in both
employer coverage and acts included. Negligent
acts of employees, whether or not the employer
is engaged in a business or industry, are covered
so long as they were acting within the scope of
their assigned task, even though committed
neither in the service of the branches nor on the
occasion of their functions.
For, admittedly, employees oftentimes wear
different hats. They perform functions which are
beyond their office, title or designation but which,
nevertheless, are still within the call of duty.

5th par. is an expansion of the 4th par. in

both employer coverage and acts included.
EMPLOYERS

SCOPE

4th
Owners and managers of a
establishment or enterprise

Covers negligent acts of

employees committed eithe
in the service of the branch
or on the occasion of their
functions
NOTE: It is not enough that it is a companyissued car as held in Valenzuela v CA. Fourth
paragraph is superfluous since it is covered by
5th.