TO: Atty.

Riza Racho-Baldovino
FROM: Atty. Angelene Aries P. Amar
RE: Johann Sobre Case No. 174156
Driver Deemed Agent of Owner
DATE: October 2, 2018

Under Article 2176 in relation with Article 2180 of the Civil Code, is Mr. Sobre,
owner of the car, liable for the damage against Jeffery Lapa’s car caused by his daughter’s
negligence in using the car when he specifically instructed her, "Go directly to the mall and
come directly home. Don't, I repeat, don't go anywhere else. Don't go to your friend’s
house, don't go shopping."?

Yes, Mr. Sobre is liable. In case of motor vehicle accidents, the actual driver, with
the consent of the owner, express or implied, is considered merely as an agent of the
registered owner of the vehicle. The owner is primarily and directly liable under Article
2176 in relation with Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

On July 6, 2017 our client, Johann Sobre, told his daughter Joanne, 20, to purchase
some paint from GS Gaisano mall, approximately eight miles from their home. He gave
her the car keys and instructed her to go directly to the mall and come directly home. He
further emphasized not to go anywhere else, to a friend’s house or to go shopping. Joanne
proceeded to purchase the paint and returned home. Her father, however, had gone to a
neighbor's and was not home. He left a note saying "I'll be back in a couple of hours."
Joanne's friend, 18-year old Sally Forta called and said, "You've got to see the new car my
dad is going to buy me." As Joanne drove to the dealership to meet Sally, she failed to yield
at a stop sign and collided with Jeffery Lapa’s car. Mr. Lapa is suing Mr. Sobre, owner of
the car, for damages.

The main aim of the motor vehicle registration is to identify the owner so that if
any accident happens, or that any damage or injury is caused by the vehicle on the public
highways and streets, responsibility for such damage or injury or death can be fixed on a
definite individual, the registered owner.

This is pursuant to Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which
provides, “Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault of
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 quasi-delict and is governed
by the provisions of this chapter.” In relation to this, Article 2180 of the same code states,
“The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own act or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.”

In this case, Mr. Sobre claimed that he cannot be held liable for the negligence of
his daughter because she acted beyond his authority. However, the provision of Article
2180 of the Civil Code is clear that Mr. Sobre, registered owner of the vehicle, can be held
liable for the fault or negligence of his daughter.

Correlative to the above-mentioned provisions of law is the ruling of the Supreme

Court in Filcar vs Espinas, G.R. No. 174156, June 20, 2012, where the latter elaborated the
liability of motor vehicle owners: “Thus, whether the driver of the motor vehicle, Floresca,
is an employee of Filcar is irrelevant in arriving at the conclusion that Filcar is primarily
and directly liable for the damages sustained by Espinas. While Republic Act No. 4136 or
the Land Transportation and Traffic Code does not contain any provision on the liability
of registered owners in case of motor vehicle mishaps, Article 2176, in relation with Article
2180, of the Civil Code imposes an obligation upon Filcar, as registered owner, to answer
for the damages caused to Espinas’ car.”. This interpretation is consistent with the strong
public policy of maintaining road safety, thereby reinforcing the aim of the State to promote
the responsible operation of motor vehicles by its citizens.

As explained by the Court in the case of Erezo vs Jepte, G.R. No. L-9605
September 30, 1957, the general public policy involved in motor vehicle registration is the
protection of innocent third persons who may have no means of identifying public road
malefactors and, therefore, would find it difficult if not impossible to seek redress for
damages they may sustain in accidents resulting in deaths, injuries and other damages; by
fixing the person held primarily and directly liable for the damages sustained by victims of
road mishaps, the law ensures that relief will always be available to them.

Given these facts, the court will probably put favor on Mr. Jeffery Lapa’s side. It is
well settled that in case of motor vehicle mishaps, the registered owner of the motor vehicle
is considered as the principal of the negligent driver, and the actual driver or operator is
considered merely as an agent of such owner. However, this does not mean that Mr. Sobre
is left without any recourse. He may, under the Civil Law principle of unjust enrichment,
have a right to be indemnified by the actual driver of the amount that he may be required
to pay as damages for the injury caused to another.