Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v.
Phil-American Forwarders
FACTS
Pineda recklessly drove a freight truck [owned by Phil-
American Forwarders] along the national highway at Pampanga,
and the truck bumped the PRBL bus driven by Pangalangan. As
a result, Pangalangan suffered injuries and the bus was
damaged and could not be used for 79 days, thus depriving PRBL
of earnings amounting to P8,665.51. Balingit was the manager of Phil-
American Forwarders.
PRBL and Pangalangan filed a complaint for
damagesagainst Phil-American Forwarders, Balingit, and Pineda.
Defendants said Balingit was not Pinedas employer. Balingit moved
that the complaint against him be dismissed on the ground that PRBL
and Pangalangan had no cause of action against him. CFI dismissed
the complaint against Balingit, on the ground that he is not the
manager of an establishment as contemplated in NCC 2180.
ISSUE AND HOLDING
WON the terms employers and owners and managers of an
establishment or enterprise embrace the manager of a corporation
owning a truck, the reckless operation of which allegedly resulted in
the vehicular accident from which the damage arose. NO.
RATIO
Those terms do not include the manager of a corporation. It may be
gathered from the context of NCC 2180 that the term manager
(director in the Spanish version) is used in the sense of employer.
Hence, no tortious or quasi-delictual liability can be imposed on
Balingit as manager of Phil-American Forwarders, in connection with
the vehicular accident in question, because he himself may be
regarded as an employee or dependienteof Phil-American
Forwarders.
CFI AFFIRMED
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines and Felix Pangalangan, plaintiff-appellants
vs. Philippine-American Forwarders, Inc. (PAFI), Archimedes Balingit
and Fernando Pineda,
GR No. L-25142, 25 March 1975, 63 SCRA 231 Doctrines Remedial Law
(Civil Procedure)
When a party deliberately adopts a certain theory and the case is
decided upon that theory in the court below, he will not be permitted
to change his theory on appeal because, to permit him to do so, could
be unfair to the adverse party. Thus, the Supreme Court disregarded
Pangalangan and Philippine Rabbit s argument that the doctrine of
piercing the corporate veil be used against PAFI, Archimedes Balingit
and his wife. The issue was not raised in the trial court below. The
case has to be decided based on allegations stated in the pleadings
(complaint) of the appellants, where it was assumed that Balingit and
his wife has separate legal personality from Philippine-American
Forwarders.
Civil Law (Torts)
The terms employers and owners and managers of an
establishment or enterprise (dueos o directores de un
establicimiento o empresa) used in Article 2180 of the New Civil Code
(formerly Article 1903, the 1889 Civil Code of Spain/Old Civil Code)
does not include manager of corporation. The Supreme Court
interpreted the term manager (directores, Spanish) is used in the
sense of employer, as it may be gathered from the articles context.
Thus, the Supreme Court held that Balingit, as manager and employee
of Philippine-American Forwarders, is not liable for damages awarded
to Pangalangan and Philippine Rabbit.
Type of Appeal
Appeal on pure question of law by Philippine Rabbit and Pangalangan
of the Court of the First Instance Tarlac decision, which dismissed
liability of Philippine-American Forwarders manager Archimedes
Balingit.
Facts
Pangalangan and Philippine Rabbit alleged that on 24 November 1962,
Fernando Pineda drove recklessly the freight truck owned by his
employer Philippine-American Forwarders along the national highway
at Sto. Tomas, Pampanga. It bumped the Philippine Rabbit bus driven
by Felix Pangalangan. As a result of the accident, Pangalangan was
injured and the damaged bus
cannot be used for seventy-nine (79) days, causing loss of income
amounting to PhP8,665.81 to Philippine Rabbit. Philippine Rabbit and
Pangalangan as plaintiffs, filed a case for damages against the
defendants Philippine-American Forwarders, its manager Archimedes
Balingit and the driver Fernando Pineda for damages and lost income
sustained by Philippine Rabbit and the injuries sustained by
Pangalangan. Balingit stated in defense that he is not Pineda s
employer and he asked for the dismissal of the plaintiffs case as they
had no cause of action against him. The CFI Tarlac held only PAFI and
Pineda liable for damages and injuries sustained and dismissed
Balingit s liability. As a result, Philippine Rabbit and Pangalangan
appealed the trial court s decision to the Supreme Court.
Issues In their appeal, Felix Pangalangan and Philippine Rabbit raised
the
issues: 1.Whether the trial court was right in dismissing the liability of
PAFI manager Archimedes Balingit to the damage sustained by them?
2. Whether the issue that Phil-American Forwarders, Inc. and Balingit
and his wife should be treated as one and the same civil personality
can be raised and adjudged on appeal?
Legal Provisions
The New Civil Code states: Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission
causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged
to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-
delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)
Article 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. The father and, in case of his death or
incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by
the minor children who live in their company. Guardians are liable for
damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are
under their authority and live in their company
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. The State is responsible in like
manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the
damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done
properly pertains, in which case what is provided in article 2176 shall
be applicable. Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and
trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students
or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody. The
responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons
herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damage. (1903a)
Held by the Supreme Court
The trial court
s decision on appeal is
AFFIRMED
and costs against plaintiff-appellants. The Supreme Court held that
based on the allegations of the complaint of appellants Philippine
Rabbit and Pangalangan, Balingit has no liability based on tort or
quasi-delict as manager of Phil-American Forwarders, Inc. in
connection with the vehicular accident because he may be regarded
as an employee of Phil-American Forwarders, Inc.
The Supreme Court interpreted the term manager is used in the
sense of employer, as it may be gathered from the articles context.
The Supreme Court disregarded the appellants argument raised on
appeal that the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil be used against
PAFI, Archimedes Balingit and his wife. Since that issue was not raised
in the trial court below, it cannot be raised also on appeal. The case
has to be decided based on allegations stated in the pleadings
(complaint) of the appellants, where it was assumed that Balingit and
his wife has a separate legal personality from that of Philippine-
American Forwarders, Inc