GUTIERREZ VS GUTIERREZ G.R.no.

34840 SEPT 23, 1931

is within the scope of his assigned task regardless

of the time and circumstances.

FACTS: On February 2, 1930, a passenger

truck and an automobile of private ownership
collided while attempting to pass each other
on a bridge. The truck was driven by the
chauffeur Abelardo Velasco, and was owned
by saturnine Cortez. The automobile was
being operated by Bonifacio Gutierrez, a lad
18 years of age, and was owned by
Bonifacios father and mother, Mr. and Mrs.
Manuel Gutierrez. At the time of the collision,
the father was not in the car, but the mother,
together with several other members of the
Gutierrez family were accommodated
therein.

ISSUE: Whether or not CASTILEX may be held

vicariously liable for the death resulting from the
negligent operation by their manager of a
company issued vehicle

The collision between the bus and the

automobile resulted in Narciso Gutierrez
suffering a fractured right leg which required
medical attendance for a considerable period
of time.
ISSUE: Whether or not both the driver of the
truck and automobile are liable for damages
and indemnification due to their negligence.
What are the legal obligations of the
defendants?
HELD: Bonifacio Gutierrezs obligation arises
from culpa aquiliana. On the other hand,
Saturnino Cortezs and his chauffeur
Abelardo Velascos obligation rise from culpa
contractual.
The youth Bonifacio was na incompetent
chauffeur, that he was driving at an
excessive rate of speed, and that, on
approaching the bridge and the truck, he lost
his head and so contributed by his
negligence to the accident. The guaranty
given by the father at the time the son was
granted a license to operate motor vehicles
made the father responsible for the acts of
his son. Based on these facts, pursuant to
the provisions of Art. 1903 of the Civil Code,
the father alone and not the minor or the
mother would be liable for the damages
caused by the minor.
The liability of Saturnino Cortez, the owner of
the truck, and his chauffeur Abelardo Velasco
rests on a different basis, namely, that of
contract.
CASTILEX Industrial Corp. vs. Vicente
Vasquez & Cebu Doctors Hospital G.R.
132266 DEC 21,1999
FACTS: Romeo Vasquez who was driving his
motorcycle collided with a company car owned by
CASTILEX driven by Abad who is the manager of
which. The parent of Romeo filed a case for
damages against Abad and CASTILEX Corporation.
The RTC ruled in favor of the Vasquezes holding
that Abad and CASTILEX are jointly and solidarily
liable. On appeal the CA affirmed holding that the
driving by a manager of a company issued vehicle

HELD: The SC held that CASTILEX is not

liable for the act committed by Abad for
Abad was carrying out a personal purpose not
in line with his duties and it was beyond the normal
working hours when the accident happened. Abad
was in a place which is a haven for prostitutes,
pimps, and drug pushers and addicts which had no
connection to CASTILEX business; neither does it
have any relation to his duties as a manager. In the
absence of some special benefit to the employer,
the employee is not acting within the scope of his
employment even though he uses his employers
motor vehicle. Furthermore, since Abad was not in
the scope of his functions, 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.

EXCONDE v. CAPUNO G.R. no. L-10134 JUN

29, 1957
FACTS: Dante Capuno was a 15 year old boy
who was a pupil of Balintawak Elementary
School. In March 1949, he attended a boy
scout parade for Dr. Jose Rizal. While they
were inside a jeep, he took control of the
wheels which he later lost control of causing
the jeep to go turtle thereby killing two other
students, Isidoro Caperina and one other.
Isidoros mother, Sabina Exconde, sued
Dante Capuno for the death of her son.
Pending the criminal action, the mother
reserved her right to file a separate civil
action which she subsequently filed against
Dante and his dad, Delfin Capuno.
ISSUE: Whether or not Delfin Capuno, as the
father of Dante is liable for damages.
HELD: Yes. The civil liability which the law
imposes upon the father, and, in case of his
death or incapacity, the mother, for any
damages that may be caused by the minor
children who live with them, is obvious. This
is necessary consequence of the parental
authority they exercise over them which
imposes upon the parents the duty of
supporting them, keeping them in their
company, educating them and instructing
them in proportion to their means, while, on
the other hand, gives them the right to
correct and punish them in moderation. The
only way by which they can relieve
themselves of this liability is if they prove

that they exercised all the diligence of a

good father of a family to prevent the
damage which Delfin failed to prove.
On the other hand, the school is not liable. It
is true that under the law, teachers or
directors of arts and trades are liable for any
damages caused by their pupils or
apprentices while they are under their
custody, but this provision only applies to
an institution of arts and trades and not to
any academic educational institution.
JUSTICE J.B.L. REYES Dissenting:
Delfin Capuno should be relieved from
liability. There is no sound reason for limiting

the liability to teachers of arts and trades

and not to academic ones. What substantial
difference is there between them in so far as,
concerns the proper supervision and
vigilance over their pupils? It cannot be
seriously contended that an academic
teacher is exempt from the duty of watching
do not commit a tort to the detriment of third
persons, so long as they are in a position to
exercise authority and supervision over the
pupil.