You are on page 1of 7

9/8/2016

G.R. No. 73998

TodayisThursday,September08,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.73998November14,1988
PEDROT.LAYUGAN,petitioner,
vs.
INTERMEDIATEAPPELLATECOURT,GODOFREDOISIDRO,andTRAVELLERSMULTIINDEMNITY
CORPORATION,respondents.
EdralinS.Mateoforpetitioner.
OrlandoL.EspinasforrespondentTravellersMultiIndemnityCorp.
RobertoT.VallartaforrespondentGodofredoIsidro.

SARMIENTO,J.:
Assailedinthispetitionforreviewoncertiorariare1)thedecision 1ofthethenIntermediateAppellateCourt 2inAC
G.R.CVNo.01055,entitled"PedroT.Layugan,PlaintiffAppellee,versusGodofredoIsidro,DefendantAppellantandThird
Party PlaintiffAppellee, versus Travellers MultiIndemnity Corporation, Third Party Defendant Appellant, "which reversed
and set aside the decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial Region, Branch XXVI, Cabanatuan City, and also
dismissed the complaint, third party complaint, and the counter claims of the parties and 2) the resolution 4 denying the
plaintiffappellee's(hereinpetitioner)motionforreconsideration,forlackofmerit.

Thefindingsoffactbythetrialcourtwhichwereadoptedbytheappellatecourtareasfollows:5
xxxxxxxxx
PedroT.LayuganfiledanactionfordamagesagainstGodofredoIsidro,allegingthatonMay15,1979
while at Baretbet, Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya, the Plaintiff and a companion were repairing the tire of
theircargotruckwithPlateNo.SU730whichwasparkedalongtherightsideoftheNationalHighway
that defendant's truck bearing Plate No. PW583, driven recklessly by Daniel Serrano bumped the
plaintiff, that as a result, plaintiff was injured and hospitalized at Dr. Paulino J. Garcia Research and
Medical Center and the Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital that he spent TEN THOUSAND PESOS
(Pl0,000.00)andwillincurmoreexpensesasherecuperatesfromsaidinjuriesthatbecauseofsaid
injuries he would be deprived of a lifetime income in the sum of SEVENTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P70,000.00)andthatheagreedtopayhislawyerthesumofTENTHOUSANDPESOS(Pl0,000.00).
As prayed for by the plaintiffs counsel, the Court declared the defendant in default on October 12,
1979,andplaintiff'sevidencewasreceivedexparteonJanuary11,1978andFebruary19,1980.The
decisiononbehalfoftheplaintiffwassetasidetogiveachancetothedefendanttofilehisanswerand
lateron,athirdpartycomplaint.
Defendant admitted his ownership of the vehicle involved in the accident driven by Daniel Serrano.
Defendantcounteredthattheplaintiffwasmerelyabystander,notatruckhelperbeingabrotherinlaw
lawofthedriverofsaidtruckthatthetruckallegedlybeingrepairedwasparked,occupyingalmosthalf
oftherightlanetowardsSolano,NuevaVizcaya,rightafterthecurvethattheproximatecauseofthe
incidentwasthefailureofthedriveroftheparkedtruckininstallingtheearlywarningdevice,hencethe
driveroftheparkedcarshouldbeliablefordamagessustainedbythetruckofthehereindefendantin
theamountofmorethanP20,000.00thatplaintiffbeingamerebystanderandhitchhikermustsufferall
the damages he incurred. By way of counterclaim defendant alleged that due to plaintiffs baseless
complainthewasconstrainedtoengagetheservicesofcounselforP5,000.00andP200.00percourt
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/nov1988/gr_73998_1988.html

1/7

9/8/2016

G.R. No. 73998

appearancethathesufferedsleeplessnights,humiliation,woundedfeelingswhichmaybeestimated
atP30.000.00.
OnMay29,1981,athirdpartycomplaintwasfiledbythedefendantagainsthisinsurer,theTravellers
Multi Indemnity Corporation that the thirdparty plaintiff, without admitting his liability to the plaintiff,
claimedthatthethirdpartydefendantisliabletotheformerforcontribution,indemnityandsubrogation
by virtue of their contract under Insurance Policy No. 11723 which covers the insurer's liability for
damagesarisingfromdeath,bodilyinjuriesanddamagetoproperty.
Thirdparty defendant answered that, even assuming that the subject matter of the complaint is
covered by a valid and existing insurance policy, its liability shall in no case exceed the limit defined
underthetermsandconditionsstatedthereinthatthecomplaintisprematureasnoclaimhasbeen
submitted to the third party defendant as prescribed under the Insurance Code that the accident in
questionwasapproximatelycausedbythecarelessnessandgrossnegligenceoftheplaintiff,thatby
reason of the thirdparty complaint, thirdparty defendant was constrained to engage the services of
counselforafeeofP3,000.00.
Pedro Layugan declared that he is a married man with one (1) child. He was employed as security
guardinMandaluyong,MetroManila,withasalaryofSIXHUNDREDPESOS(600.00)amonth.When
heisoffduty,heworkedasatruckhelperandwhileworkingassuch,hesustainedinjuriesasaresult
of the bumping of the cargo truck they were repairing at Baretbet, Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya by the
driver of the defendant. He used to earn TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P200.00) to THREE HUNDRED
PESOS (P300.00) monthly, at the rate of ONE HUNDRED PESOS (Pl00.00) per trip. Due to said
injuries, his left leg was amputated so he had to use crutches to walk. Prior to the incident, he
supported his family sufficiently, but after getting injured, his family is now being supported by his
parentsandbrother.
GODOFREDO ISIDRO, defendant/thirdparty plaintiff, testified that his truck involved in this vehicular
accident is insured with the Travellers Multi Indemnity Corporation covering own damage and third
party liability, under vehicle policy No. 11723 (Exh. "1") dated May 30, 1978 that after he filed the
insuranceclaimtheinsurancecompanypaidhimthesumofP18,000.00forthedamagessustainedby
thistruckbutnotthethirdpartyliability.
DANIELSERRANO,defendantdriver,declaredthathegaveastatementbeforethemunicipalpoliceof
Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya on May 16, 1979 that he knew the responsibilities of a driver that before
leaving,hecheckedthetruck.Thetruckownerusedtoinstructhimtobecarefulindriving.Hebumped
thetruckbeingrepairedbyPedroLayugan,plaintiff,whilethesamewasatastopposition.Fromthe
evidence presented, it has been established clearly that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff was
causedbydefendant'sdriver,DanielSerrano.Thepolicereportconfirmedtheallegationoftheplaintiff
andadmittedbyDanielSerranooncrossexamination.Thecollisiondislodgedthejackfromtheparked
truck and pinned the plaintiff to the ground. As a result thereof, plaintiff sustained injuries on his left
forearmandleftfoot.Theleftlegoftheplaintifffrombelowthekneewaslateronamputated(Exh."C")
whengangrenehadsetin,therebyrenderinghimincapacitatedforworkdeprivinghimofhisincome.
(pp.118to120,RecordonAppeal.)
xxxxxxxxx
Uponsuchfindings,amplysupportedbytheevidenceonrecord,thetrialcourtrendereditsdecision,thedispositive
partofwhichreadsasfollows:6
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thedefendantisherebyordered:
a) To pay the plaintiff SEVENTY THOUSAND (P70,000.00) PESOS actual and compensatory
damages
b)TWOTHOUSAND(P2,000.00)PESOSforattorney'sfees
c)FIVETHOUSAND(P5,000.00)PESOSformoraldamagesand
d) To pay the costs of this suit. On the thirdparty complaint, the thirdparty defendant is ordered to
indemnifythedefendant/thirdpartyplaintiff.
a)ThesumofFIFTYTHOUSAND(P50,000.00)PESOSforactualandcompensatorydamagesand
b)Thecostsofthissuit.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/nov1988/gr_73998_1988.html

2/7

9/8/2016

G.R. No. 73998

The Intermediate Appellate Court as earlier stated reversed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the
complaint,thethirdpartycomplaint,andthecounterclaimsofbothappellants.7
Hence,thispetition.
Thepetitionerallegesthefollowingerrors.8
1. WHETHER UPON THE GIVEN FACTS, THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT ACTED
CORRECTLY IN REVERSING AND SETTING ASIDE AND DISMISSING THE PLAINTIFF
APPELLEE'SCOMPLAINT.
2. WHETHER THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT ACTED CORRECTLY IN APPLYING THE
DOCTRINEOF"RESIPSALOQUITUR"WITHPROPERJURISPRUDENTIAL(sic)BASIS.
The crux of the controversy lies in the correctness or error of the decision of the respondent court finding the
petitioner negligent under the doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur (The thing speaks for itself). Corollary thereto, is the
questionastowhoisnegligent,ifthedoctrineisinapplicable.
<re||an1w>

Therespondentcorporationstressesthattheissuesraisedinthepetitionbeingfactual,thesameisnotreviewable
bythisCourtinapetitionforreviewbycertiorari.9
Indeed,itisanelementaryruleinthereviewofdecisionsoftheCourtofAppealsthatitsfindingsoffactareentitled
to great respect and will not ordinarily be disturbed by this Court. 10 For if we have to review every question of fact
elevatedtous,wewouldhardlyhaveanymoretimeleftfortheweightierissuescompellinganddeservingourpreferential
attention.11Bethatasitmay,thisruleisnotinflexible.Surelythereareestablishedexceptions 12whentheCourtshould
reviewandrectifythefindingsoffactofthelowercourt,suchas:

1)whentheconclusionisafindinggroundedentirelyonspeculation,surmise,orconjecture2)theinferencemade
ismanifestlymistaken3)thereisgraveabuseofdiscretion4)thejudgmentisbasedonmisapprehensionoffacts
5)theCourtofAppealswentbeyondtheissuesofthecaseifthefindingsarecontrarytotheadmissionofboththe
appellantandtheappellee6)thefindingsoftheCourtofAppealsarecontrarytothoseofthetrialcourt7)thesaid
findingsoffactareconclusionswithoutcitationofspecificevidenceonwhichtheyarebased8)thefactssetforthin
thepetitionaswellasinthepetitioner'smainandreplybriefsarenotdisputedbytherespondentsand9)whenthe
findingsoffactoftheCourtofAppealsarepremisedontheabsenceofevidenceandarecontradictedonrecord.
Exceptions1,2,4,6,7,and9obtainintheinstantcasetowarrantadeviationfromthegeneralrule.
From its finding that the parked truck was loaded with ten (10) big round logs 13 the Court of Appeals inferred that
because of its weight the truck could not have been driven to the shoulder of the road and concluded that the same was
parkedonaportionoftheroad 14atthetimeoftheaccident.Consequently,therespondentcourtinferredthatthemishap
wasduetothenegligenceofthedriveroftheparkedtruck.15Theinferenceorconclusionismanifestlyerroneous.Inalarge
measure,itisgroundedonspeculation,surmise,orconjecture.Howtherespondentcourtcouldhavereversedthefindingof
the trial court that a warning device was installed 16 escapes us because it is evident from the record that really such a
device,intheformofalightedkerosenelamp,wasinstalledbythedriveroftheparkedtruckthreetofourmetersfromthe
rearofhisparkedtruck.17Weseethisnegativefindingoftherespondentappellatecourtasamisreadingofthefactsand
the evidence on record and directly contravening the positive finding of the trial court that an early warning device was in
properplacewhentheaccidenthappenedandthatthedriveroftheprivaterespondentwastheonenegligent.Ontheother
hand,therespondentcourt,inrefusingtogiveits"imprimaturtothetrialcourt'sfindingandconclusionthatDanielSerrano
(private respondent Isidro's driver) was negligent in driving the truck that bumped the parked truck", did not cite specific
evidencetosupportitsconclusion.Incavalierfashion,itsimplyandnebulouslyadvertedtounspecified"scantyevidenceon
record."18

Onthetechnicalaspectofthecase,therespondentcorporationwouldwantustodismissthispetitionontheground
thatitwasfiledoutoftime.Itmustbenotedthattherewasamotionforextension, 19albeitfilederroneouslywiththe
respondent court, dated March 19, 1986, requesting for 30 days from March 20, 1986, to file the necessary petition or
pleading before the Supreme Court". Also, on April 1, 1986, an appearance of a new lawyer for the petitioner before the
SupremeCourt"withmotion 20wasfiled,againerroneously,withtheCourtofAppeals,requestingfor20daysextension"to
filethePetitionforReviewonCertiorari."Likewiseasimilarmotion 21wasfiledwiththisCourtalsoonApril1,1986.Onthe
otherhand,theinstantpetitionforreviewwasfiledonApril17,198622butitwasonlyafterthreemonths,onAugust1,1986,
initscomment23thattherespondentcorporationraisedtheissueoftardiness.Therespondentcorporationshouldnothave
waitedinambushbeforethecommentwasrequiredandbeforeduecoursewasgiven.Inanyevent,toexactits"apoundof
flesh",sotospeak,atthisverylatestage,wouldcauseagravemiscarriageofjustice.Parenthetically,itmustbenotedthat
privaterespondentIsidrodidnotraisethisissueoflatefiling.

Wenowcometothemeritsofthispetition.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/nov1988/gr_73998_1988.html

3/7

9/8/2016

G.R. No. 73998

Thequestionbeforeusiswhowasnegligent?Negligenceistheomissiontodosomethingwhichareasonableman,
guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of
somethingwhichaprudentandreasonablemanwouldnotdo24orasJudgeCooleydefinesit,"(T)hefailuretoobserve
fortheprotectionoftheinterestsofanotherperson,thatdegreeofcare,precaution,andvigilancewhichthecircumstances
justlydemand,wherebysuchotherpersonsuffersinjury.25

InPicartvs.Smith,26decidedmorethanseventyyearsagobutstillasoundrule,weheld:
Thetestbywhichtodeterminetheexistenceofnegligenceinaparticularcasemaybestatedasfollows:Didthe
defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent
personwouldhaveusedinthesamesituation?Ifnot,thenheisguiltyofnegligence.Thelawhereineffectadopts
thestandardsupposedtobesuppliedbytheimaginaryconductofthediscreetpaterfamiliasoftheRomanlaw.The
existenceofnegligenceinagivencaseisnotdeterminedbyreferencetothepersonaljudgmentoftheactorinthe
situationbeforehim.TheLawconsiderswhatwouldbereckless,blameworthy,ornegligentinthemanofordinary
intelligenceandprudenceanddeterminesliabilitybythat.
RespondentIsidropositsthatanyimmobileobjectalongthehighway,likeaparkedtruck,posesseriousdangertoa
movingvehiclewhichhastherighttobeonthehighway.Hearguesthatsincetheparkedcargotruckinthiscase
wasathreattolifeandlimbandproperty,itwasincumbentuponthedriveraswellasthepetitioner,whoclaimsto
beahelperofthetruckdriver,toexerciseextremecaresothatthemotoristnegotiatingtheroadwouldbeproperly
forewarnedoftheperilofaparkedvehicle.Isidrosubmitsthattheburdenofprovingthatcareanddiligencewere
observedisshiftedtothepetitioner,for,aspreviouslyclaimed,his(Isidro's)Isuzutruckhadarighttobeontheroad,
whiletheimmobilecargotruckhadnobusiness,sotospeak,tobethere.Likewise,Isidroproffersthatthepetitioner
must show to the satisfaction of a reasonable mind that the driver and he (petitioner) himself, provided an early
warningdevice,likethatrequiredbylaw,or,bysomeotheradequatemeansthatwouldproperlyforewarnvehicles
of the impending danger that the parked vehicle posed considering the time, place, and other peculiar
circumstancesoftheoccasion.Absentsuchproofofcare,asinthecaseatbar,Isidroconcludes,would,underthe
doctrineofResipsaloquitur,evokethepresumptionofnegligenceonthepartofthedriveroftheparkedcargotruck
aswellashishelper,thepetitionerherein,whowasfixingtheflattireofthesaidtruck.27
RespondentIsidro'scontentionisuntenable.
The evidence on record discloses that three or four meters from the rear of the parked truck, a lighted kerosene
lampwasplaced.28Moreover,thereistheadmissionofrespondentIsidro'sdriver,DanielSerrano,toWit:29
Question No. 8 (by Patrolman Josefino Velasco)Will you narrate to me in brief how the accident
happens(sic)ifyoucanstillremember?
Answer:(byDanielSerrano)
Thatonorabout10:40p.m.,15May1979whiledrivingIsuzutruckatBaretbet,Bagabag,
NuevaVizcayaandatKM285,Imetanothervehiclewho(sic)didnotdimhis(sic)lights
whichcause(sic)metobeblindedwithintenseglareofthelightthat'swhyIdidnotnotice
aparkedtruckwho(sic)wasrepairingafrontflattire.WhenIwasafewmetersaway,I
sawthetruckwhichwasloadedwithroundlogs.Istep(sic)onmyfootbrakesbutitdid
notfunctionwithmymanyattempts.Ihave(sic)foundoutlaterthatthefluidpipeonthe
rearrightwascutthat'swhythebreaksdidnotfunction.(Emphasissupplied).
Whetherthecargotruckwasparkedalongtheroadoronhalftheshoulderoftherightsideoftheroadwouldbeof
no moment taking into account the warning device consisting of the lighted kerosene lamp placed three or four
metersfromthebackofthetruck.30Butdespitethiswarningwhichweruleassufficient,theIsuzutruckdrivenbyDaniel
Serrano,anemployeeoftheprivaterespondent,stillbumpedtherearoftheparkedcargotruck.Asadirectconsequenceof
suchaccidentthepetitionersustainedinjuriesonhisleftforearmandleftfoot.Hisleftlegwaslateramputatedfrombelowthe
kneewhengangrenehadsetin.31

ItisclearfromtheforegoingdisquisitionthattheabsenceorwantofcareofDanielSerranohasbeenestablishedby
clearandconvincingevidence.ItfollowsthatinstampingitsimprimaturupontheinvocationbyrespondentIsidroof
the doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur to escape liability for the negligence of his employee, the respondent court
committedreversibleerror.
Therespondentcourtruled:32
xxxxxxxxx
In addition to this, we agree with the following arguments of appellant Godofredo Isidro which would
showthattheaccidentwascausedduetothenegligenceofthedriverofthecargotruck:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/nov1988/gr_73998_1988.html

4/7

9/8/2016

G.R. No. 73998

xxxxxxxxx
...Inthecaseatbartheburdenofprovingthatcareanddiligencewas(sic)observedis
shiftedevidentlytotheplaintiff,for,asadvertedto,themotoristshavetherighttobeon
theroad,whiletheimmobiletruckhasnobusiness,sotospeak,tobethere.Itisthusfor
theplaintifftoshowtothesatisfactionofareasonablemindthatthedriverandhehimself
didemployearlywarningdevicesuchasthatrequiredbylaworbysomeotheradequate
meansordevicethatwouldproperlyforewarnvehiclesoftheimpendingdangerthatthe
parkedvehicleposedconsideringthetime,placeandotherpeculiarcircumstancesofthe
occasion.Absentsuchproofofcare,asinthecaseatbar,willevokethepresumptionof
negligenceunderthedoctrineofresipsaloquitur,onthepartofthedriveroftheparked
cargo truck as well as plaintiff who was fixing the flat tire of said truck. (pp. 1417,
Appellant'sBrief).(Emphasissupplied).
Atthisjuncture,itmaybeenlighteningandhelpfulintheproperresolutionoftheissueofnegligencetoexaminethe
doctrineofResipsaloquitur.
This doctrine is stated thus: "Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the
defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the
managementusepropercare,itaffordsreasonableevidence,intheabsenceofanexplanationbythedefendant,
thattheaccidentarosefromwantofcare.33OrasBlack'sLawDictionary34putsit:
Resipsaloquitur.ThethingspeaksforitselfRebuttablepresumptionorinferencethatdefendantwas
negligent, which arises upon proof that instrumentality causing injury was in defendant's exclusive
control,andthattheaccidentwasonewhichordinarilydoesnothappeninabsenceofnegligence.Res
ipsaloquiturisruleofevidencewherebynegligenceofallegedwrongdoermaybeinferredfrommere
fact that accident happened provided character of accident and circumstances attending it lead
reasonably to belief that in absence of negligence it would not have occurred and that thing which
caused injury is shown to have been under management and control of alleged wrongdoer. Hillen v.
Hooker Const. Co., Tex. Civ. App., 484 S.W. 2d 133, 155. Under doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur" the
happeningofaninjurypermitsaninferenceofnegligencewhereplaintiffproducessubstantialevidence
that injury was caused by an agency or instrumentality under exclusive control and management of
defendant,andthattheoccurrencewassuchthatintheordinarycourseofthingswouldnothappenif
reasonablecarehadbeenused.
Inthisjurisdictionwehaveappliedthisdoctrineinquiteanumberofcases,notablyinAfricaetal.vs.Caltex,Inc.,et
al.,35andthelatestisinthecaseofF.F.CruzandCo.,Inc.vs.CA.36
ThedoctrineofResipsaloquitur as a rule of evidence is peculiar to the law of negligence which recognizes that
prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof and furnishes a substitute for specific proof of
negligence. 37 The doctrine is not a rule of substantive law 38 but merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural
convenience.39Therule,whenapplicabletothefactsandcircumstancesofaparticularcase,isnotintendedtoanddoes
notdispensewiththerequirementofproofofculpablenegligenceonthepartofthepartycharged. 40Itmerelydetermines
andregulateswhatshallbeprimafacieevidencethereofandfacilitatestheburdenofplaintiffofprovingabreachoftheduty
of due care. 41 The doctrine can be invoked when and only when, under the circumstances involved, direct evidence is
absent and not readily available. 42 Hence, it has generally been held that the presumption of inference arising from the
doctrine cannot be availed of, or is overcome, where plaintiff has knowledge and testifies or presents evidence as to the
specificactofnegligencewhichisthecauseoftheinjurycomplainedoforwherethereisdirectevidenceastotheprecise
causeoftheaccidentandallthefactsandcircumstancesattendantontheoccurrenceclearlyappear. 43Finally,oncethe
actualcauseofinjuryisestablishedbeyondcontroversy,whetherbytheplaintifforbythedefendant,nopresumptionswillbe
involved and the doctrine becomes inapplicable when the circumstances have been so completely eludicated that no
inferenceofdefendant'sliabilitycanreasonablybemade,whateverthesourceoftheevidence,44asinthiscase.

TheprivaterespondentissuedunderArt.2176inrelationtoArt.2180,paragraph5,oftheCivilCode.Inthelatter,
whenaninjuryiscausedbythenegligenceofaservantoremployeethereinstantlyarisesapresumptionoflawthat
therewasnegligenceonthepartofthemasteroremployereitherintheselectionoftheservantoremployee,orin
supervision over him after selection, or both. Such presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure and
consequently,mayberebutted.Iffollowsnecessarilythatiftheemployershowstothesatisfactionofthecourtthat
in the selection and in the supervision he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family, the
presumptionisovercomeandheisrelievedfromliability.45Indisclaimingliabilityfortheincident,theprivaterespondent
stressesthatthenegligenceofhisemployeehasalreadybeenadequatelyovercomebyhisdriver'sstatementthatheknew
hisresponsibilitiesasadriverandthatthetruckownerusedtoinstructhimtobecarefulindriving.46

Wedonotagreewiththeprivaterespondentinhissubmission.Inthefirstplace,itisclearthatthedriverdidnot
knowhisresponsibilitiesbecauseheapparentlydidnotcheckhisvehiclebeforehetookitontheroad.Ifhedidhe
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/nov1988/gr_73998_1988.html

5/7

9/8/2016

G.R. No. 73998

couldhavediscoveredearlierthatthebrakefluidpipeontherightwascut,andcouldhaverepaireditandthusthe
accidentcouldhavebeenavoided.Moveover,toourmind,thefactthattheprivaterespondentusedtointructhis
drivertobecarefulinhisdriving,thatthedriverwaslicensed,andthefactthathehadnorecordofanyaccident,as
found by the respondent court, are not sufficient to destroy the finding of negligence of the Regional Trial Court
giventhefactsestablishedatthetrial 47Theprivaterespondentorhismechanic,whomustbecompetent,shouldhave
conductedathoroughinspectionofhisvehiclebeforeallowinghisdrivertodriveit.Inthelightofthecircumstancesobtaining
in the case, we hold that Isidro failed to prove that the diligence of a good father of a family in the supervision of his
employeeswhichwouldexculpatehimfromsolidaryliabilitywithhisdrivertothepetitioner.Butevenifweconcedethatthe
diligenceofagoodfatherofafamilywasobservedbyIsidrointhesupervisionofhisdriver,thereisnotaniotaofevidence
onrecordoftheobservancebyIsidroofthesamequantumofdiligenceinthesupervisionofhismechanic,ifany,whowould
bedirectlyinchargeinmaintainingtheroadworthinessofhis(Isidro's)truck.Butthatisnotall.Thereispaucityofproofthat
Isidro exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of his driver, Daniel Serrano, as well as in the
selection of his mechanic, if any, in order to insure the safe operation of his truck and thus prevent damage to others.
Accordingly,theresponsibilityofIsidroasemployertreatedinArticle2180,paragraph5,oftheCivilCodehasnotceased.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of the respondent court as well as its Resolution
denyingthepetitioner'smotionforreconsiderationareherebySETASIDEandthedecisionofthetrialcourt,dated
January20,1983,isherebyREINSTATEDintoto.Withcostsagainsttheprivaterespondents.
SOORDERED.
MelencioHerrera,(Chairman),ParasandPadilla,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1Veloso,MarcelinoR.,ponenteSison,PorfirioV.,Bidin,AbdulwahidA.,andBritanico,RamonB.,JJ.,
concurring.
2FourthCivilCasesDivision.
3RenderedbyJudgeLeticiaP.Morales.
4Veloso,MercelinoR.,J.,ponenteSison,PorfirioV.Bidin,AbdulwahidA.,andBritanico,RamonB.,
JJ.,concurring.
5DecisionofIAC,Rollo,4649.
6DecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourt,Rollo,32.
7Ibid.,p.52.
8Petition,Rollo,pp.89.
9Rollo,108.
10TheExecutiveSecretary,etal.vs.CA,G.R.No.L37999,June10,1988,citingChanvs.CA,G.R.
No.L27488,June30,1970,33SCRA737LiangaBayLoggingCo.,Inc.vs.CA,G.R.No.L37783,
January28,1988.
11AndersonCo.,etal.vs.IAC,G.R.No.L65928,June21,1988.
12DirectorofLandsvs.CA,G.R.No.L46068,September30,1982,117SCRA346,citing
Macadangdangvs.CANo.L49542,September12,1980,100SCRA73Manerovs.CAG.R.No.L
49824,February20,1981102SCRA817PioL.Padillavs,C.A.,January29,1988G.R.75577,
January29,1988MunicipalityofMeycauayan,Bulacanvs.IAC,G.R.L72126,January29,1988.
13Decision,CourtofAppeals,50.
14Id.
15Id.
16Id.
17Petition,13.
18Decision,CA,50.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/nov1988/gr_73998_1988.html

6/7

9/8/2016

G.R. No. 73998

19AnnexK,59.
20AnnexM,62.
21MotionforExtension,2.
22Petition,4.
23Comment,65.
24BlackLawDictionary,FifthEdition,930.
25CooleyonTorts,FourthEdition,Vol.3,265.
2637Phil.809,813,No.L12219,March15,1918HedyGanvs.TheHon.CourtofAppeals,G.R.L
44264,September19,1988.
27MemorandumofPrivateRespondent,23.
28Rollo,13.
29Id.,11,quotingthepoliceinvestigationreportbyPatrolmanJosefinoVelascoatabout10:00a.m.,
onMay16,1979,themorningaftertheaccident,ofthestatementofDanielSerrano,thedriverof
respondentIsidro.
30Petition,Rollo,13.
31Decision,RTC,Rollo,13.
32Decision,IAC,Rollo,5051,52.
33CooleyonTorts,Vol.3.369.
34FifthEdition,1173.
35L12986,March31,1966,16SCRA448.
36L52732,August29,1988.
37CorpusJurisSecundum,Vol.65A,525.
38Id.,527.
39Id.,529.
40Id529530.
41Id.,530.
42Id.,543544.
43Id.,544545.
44Id.,548.
45Bahiavs.LitonpiaandLeynes,No.L9734,March31,1915,30Phils.624.
46Memorandumofprivaterespondent,6.
47Decision,IAC,Rollo,52.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/nov1988/gr_73998_1988.html

7/7