- Filamer v.

CA
G.R. No. 75112 [October 16, 1990]
- Facts:
- Private respondent Potenciano Kapunan, Sr., an eighty-two-year old retired schoolteacher (now deceased),
was struck by the Pinoy jeep owned by petitioner Filamer and driven by its alleged employee, Funtecha, as
Kapunan, Sr. was walking along Roxas Avenue, Roxas City at 6:30 in the evening of October 20, 1977. As a
result of the accident, Kapunan, Sr. suffered multiple injuries for which he was hospitalized for a total of
twenty (20) days. At the time of the vehicular accident, only one headlight of the jeep was functioning.
Funtecha, who only had a student driver’s permit, was driving after having persuaded Allan Masa, the
authorized driver, to turn over the wheels to him. The two fled from the scene after the incident. A tricycle
driver brought the unconscious victim to the hospital. The trial court rendered judgment finding not only
petitioner Filamer and Funtecha to be at fault but also Allan Masa, a non-party. Only petitioner Filamer and
third-party defendant Zenith Insurance Corporation appealed the lower court’s judgment to the Court of
Appeals and as a consequence, said lower court’sdecision became final as to Funtecha. For failure of the
insurance firm to pay the docket fees, its appeal was dismissed on September 18, 1984. On December 17,
1985, theAppellate Court rendered the assailed judgment affirming the trial court’s decision in toto. Hence
the present recourse by petitioner Filamer.
- Issue:
- Whether or not the term “employer” as used in Article 2180 is applicable to petitioner Filamer with reference
to Funtecha.
- Ruling:
- The Court ruled that even if we were to concede the status of an employee on Funtecha, still the primary
responsibility for his wrongdoing cannot be imputed to petitioner Filamer for the plain reason that at the time
of the accident, it has been satisfactorily shown that Funtecha was not acting within the scope of his
supposed employment. His duty was to sweep the school passages for two hours every morning before his
regular classes. Taking the wheels of the Pinoy jeep from the authorized driver at 6:30 in the evening and
then driving the vehicle in a reckless manner resulting in multiple injuries to a third person were certainly not
within the ambit of his assigned tasks. At the time of the injury, Funtecha was not engaged in the execution
of the janitorial services for which he was employed, but for some purpose of his own. It is but fair therefore
that Funtecha should bear the full brunt of his tortious negligence. Petitioner Filamer cannot be made liable
for the damages he had caused. Furthermore, the Court cited Section 14, Rule X of Book III of the Labor
Code, under the Labor Code, petitioner Filamer cannot be considered as Funtecha’s employer.
Funtecha belongs to that special category of students who render service to the school in exchange for free
tuition Funtecha worked for petitioner for two hours daily for five days a week. He was assigned to clean the
school passageways from 4:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. with sufficient time to prepare for his 7:30 a.m. classes. As
admitted by Agustin Masa in open court, Funtecha was not included in the company payroll.