1) Fausta Litonjua owned an automobile that she turned over to her son Ramon's International Garage business to use. Ramon then rented the car to Mariano Leynes along with a driver and mechanic.
2) While being driven by the supplied driver in Balayan, the car's steering gear malfunctioned, causing it to crash into a wall and kill Bahia's daughter.
3) Bahia sued Fausta and Leynes. The trial court found Leynes liable but dismissed the case against Fausta.
4) The Supreme Court affirmed dismissing Fausta, as she had fully turned over management and control of the car to her son's business.
1) Fausta Litonjua owned an automobile that she turned over to her son Ramon's International Garage business to use. Ramon then rented the car to Mariano Leynes along with a driver and mechanic.
2) While being driven by the supplied driver in Balayan, the car's steering gear malfunctioned, causing it to crash into a wall and kill Bahia's daughter.
3) Bahia sued Fausta and Leynes. The trial court found Leynes liable but dismissed the case against Fausta.
4) The Supreme Court affirmed dismissing Fausta, as she had fully turned over management and control of the car to her son's business.
1) Fausta Litonjua owned an automobile that she turned over to her son Ramon's International Garage business to use. Ramon then rented the car to Mariano Leynes along with a driver and mechanic.
2) While being driven by the supplied driver in Balayan, the car's steering gear malfunctioned, causing it to crash into a wall and kill Bahia's daughter.
3) Bahia sued Fausta and Leynes. The trial court found Leynes liable but dismissed the case against Fausta.
4) The Supreme Court affirmed dismissing Fausta, as she had fully turned over management and control of the car to her son's business.
BAHIA v LITONJUA AND LEYNES March 30, 1912 had the full management and control of it and received
rol of it and received all
the profits therefrom. It appears that Fausta was not aware FACTS: of the contract with Leynes. While she may have been in one sense the owner of the machine, that fact does not, Fausta Litonjua purchased an automobile and later turned it under the other facts of the case, make her responsible for over to International garage, which isowned and managed the results of the accident. by his son Ramon Ramirez. The judgment against Leynes must be reversed and the As part of the daily operations of his business, Ramirez complaint against him must be dismissed.While it may be rented the automobile donated by his mother toMariano said that, at the time of the accident, the chauffeur who was Leynes. Ramirez also supplied Leynes a chauffeur and a driving the auto was aservant of Leynes, in as much as the machinist for the purpose of conveying to and from Balayan profits derived from the trips of the auto belonged to him and Tuy. While in Balayan, the automobile refused to obey and theauto was operated under his direction, nevertheless, the direction of the driver in turning a corner due to adefect this fact is not conclusive in making himresponsible for the in the steering gear. As a consequence, it rammed into the negligence of the chauffeur or for the defects in the auto wall of a house against which thedaughter of plaintiff Bahia itself. was leaning at the time. The automobile crushed the child to death. Under Article 1903 of the CC (now Article 2176), 2 things are apparent:1.presumption of negligence on the part Bahia then filed an action against the Fausta (donor of of the employer whenever there is an injury caused auto), and Leynes,under who was directing andcontrolling by the negligence employee2.presumption is juris the operation of the automobile at the time of the accident. tantum and may be rebutted. Ramirez was not made a party. In the instant case, the death of the child caused by a TC found Leynes liable but dismissed complait against defect in the steering gear immediately raised the Fausta. presumption that Leynes was negligence in selecting a defective automobile or in his failure to maintain it in good condition after selection. As to selection, SC found that ISSUE: Who should be held responsible defendant had exercised due diligence when he obtained the machine from a reputable garage, which so far as HELD: appeared in good condition. The workmen were likewise selected from a standard garage, were duly licensed, and SC opined that the action as to Fausta was properly apparently thoroughly competent. The machine had been dismissed. Although the mother purchased the automobile, used but a few hours when the accident occurred and it is she turned it over to the garage of her son for use therein. clear from the evidence that the defendant had no notice, The establishment belonged to the son, Ramirez, and he either actual or constructive of the defective condition of the steering gear. Sufficient time had not elapsed to require an examination of the machine by the defendant as a part of his duty of inspection and supervision. While it does not appear that the defendant formulated rules and regulations for the guidance of the drivers and gave them proper instructions designed for the protection of the public and the passengers, the evidence shows that the death of the child was not caused by a failure to promulgate rules and regulations. It was caused by a defect in the machine as to which the defendant has shown himself free from responsibility.
G.R. No. 72706 October 27, 1987 Constantino C. ACAIN, Petitioner, Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court (Third Special Cases Division), Virginia A. Fernandez and Rosa DIONGSON, Respondents