RAYMUNDO ODANI SECOSA, petitioner.

vs.

HEIRS OF ERWIN SUAREZ FRANCISCO, respondents.

G.R. No. 160039. June 29, 2004

Facts:

Erwin Suarez Francisco, a student of the Manila Central University, was riding a
motorcycle. At the same time, petitioner, Raymundo Odani Secosa, was driving an Isuzu cargo
truck it was owned by petitioner, Dassad Warehousing and Port Services, Inc. Traveling behind
the motorcycle driven by Francisco was a sand and gravel truck, which in turn was being tailed
by the Isuzu truck driven by Secosa. When Secosa overtook the sand and gravel truck, he
bumped the motorcycle causing Francisco to fall. The rear wheels of the Isuzu truck then ran
over Francisco, which resulted in his instantaneous death. Fearing for his life, petitioner Secosa
left his truck and fled the scene of the collision. Respondents, the parents of Erwin Francisco,
filed an action for damages against Raymond Odani Secosa, Dassad Warehousing and Port
Services, Inc. and Dassad’s president, El Buenasucenso Sy. The complaint was docketed as Civil
case of the RTC the court a quo rendered a decision in favor of herein respondents. Petitioners
appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the appealed decision in toto.

Issue:

Whether petitioner Dassad Warehousing and Port Services, Inc. exercised the diligence of a
good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees.

Held:

Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides: 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 in
Article 2180, in pertinent part, states: 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.
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. Thus, the petition is DENIED. The assailed decision is AFFIRMED Dassas
Warehousing and Port Services, Inc. exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of its employees; we find the assailed decision to be in full accord
with pertinent provisions of law and established jurisprudence
 EQUITABLE LEASING CORPORATION vs. LUCITA SUYOM

G.R. no. 143360 September 5, 2002

Facts:

Raul Tutor was the driver of a Fuso tractor rammed into the house cum store of Myrna
Tamayo. Was charged and convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide and
multiple physical injuries in Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. Respondents filed against
Equitable Leasing Corporation a complaint for damages in the RTC of Manila. Upon motion of
the plaintiff’s counsel in the Trial court an order dropping Raul Tutor, Ecatine and Edwin Lim
from the Complaint, because they could not be found. Petitioners answer with counterclaim
that the vehicle had already been sold to Ecatine and that Tutor was an employee not of
Equitable, but of Ecatine. The RTC rendered its Decision ordering petitioner to pay actual and
moral damages and attorney’s fee to the respondents it held that since the Deed of Sale
between petitioner and Ecatine had not been registered with the Land Transportation Office,
thus the petitioner was liable to respondents. The Court of Appeals held that petitioner was still
to be legally deemed the owner/operator of the tractor, even if that vehicle had been the
subject of a Deed of Sale on file with the LTO still remained in petitioner’s name. And CA upheld
respondents to claim for moral damages against petitioner because the appellate court
considered Tutor (driver) an agent of the registered owner/ operator

Issues:

a. Whether or not the Court of Appeals and the trial Court gravely erred when they decided and
held that petitioners were liable for damages suffered by private respondents based on quasi-
delict for the negligent acts of a driver who was not the employee of the petitioner

b. Whether or not the Court of Appeals and the trial court gravely erred when they awarded
moral damages to private respondents despite their failure to prove that the injuries they have
suffered brought by the petitioner’s wrongful act.

Held:

a. In negligence cases under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, employers may be held
subsidiarily liable for felonies, committed by their employees in the discharge of the latter’s
duties. This liability attaches when the employees found to be insolvent and thus unable to
satisfy the civil liability adjudged. Under Article 2176 in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code,
and quasi-delict may be instituted against the employer for an employee’s act or omission,
respondents having failed to recover anything in the criminal case. The evidence is clear that the
deaths and the injuries suffered by respondents and their kins were due to the fault of the
driver of the Fuso tractor. The lease Agreement of between petitioner and Edwin Lim stipulated
that ownership of the subject tractor will be registered in the name of the petitioner, until the
value of the vehicle has been fully paid. Thus, the deaths and the injuries complained of,
because it was the registered owner of the tractor at the time of the accident.

b. Moral damages is designed to compensate and alleviate in some way the physical suffering,
mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and similar injury caused by a person.
Must proportional to and in approximation of the suffering inflicted, so because moral damages
are payment award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered, not to
impose a penalty on the wrong doer. Article 2219 (2) provides that the liability of the petitioner
as the registered owner of the vehicle, respondents have satisfactorily shown the existence of
the factual basis for the award and its causal connection to the acts of Raul Tutor. Indeed, the
damages and injuries suffered by respondents were the proximate result of petitioner’s
tortuous act or omission. Thus, the evidence gives no doubt that such discretion was properly
and judiciously exercised by the trial court.