caravan travel and tours v abejar

February 2016 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 170631, February 10, 2016

CARAVAN TRAVEL AND TOURS INTERNATIONAL, INC. , Petitioner , v. ERMILINDA R. ABEJAR , Respondent .

D E C I S I O N

LEONEN, J. :

The plaintiff may first prove the employer's ownership of the vehicle involved in a mishap by presenting the vehicle's registration in evidence. Thereafter, a disputable presumption that the requirements for an employer's liability under Article 2180 1 of the Civil Code have been satisfied will arise. The burden of evidence then shifts to the defendant to show that no liability under Article 2180 has ensued. This case, thus, harmonizes the requirements of Article 2180, in relation to Article 2176 2 of the Civil Code, and the so-called registered-owner rule as established in this court's rulings in Aguilar, Sr. v. Commercial Savings Bank , 3 Del Carmen, Jr. v. Bacoy , 4 Filcar Transport Services v. Espinas , 5 and Mendoza v. Spouses Gomez . 6 Through this Petition for Review on Certiorari, 7 Caravel Travel and Tours International, Inc. (Caravan) prays that the Decision 8 dated October 3, 2005 and the Resolution 9 dated November 29, 2005 of the Court of Appeals Twelfth Division be reversed and set aside. 10 On July 13, 2000, Jesmariane R. Reyes (Reyes) was walking along the west-bound lane of Sampaguita Street, United Para�aque Subdivision IV, Para�aque City. 11 A Mitsubishi L-300 van with plate number PKM 195 12 was travelling along the east-bound lane, opposite Reyes. 13 To avoid an incoming vehicle, the van swerved to its left and hit Reyes. 14 Alex Espinosa (Espinosa), a witness to the accident, went to her aid and loaded her in the back of the van. 15 Espinosa told the driver of the van, Jimmy Bautista (Bautista), to bring Reyes to the hospital. 16 Instead of doing so, Bautista appeared to have left the van parked inside a nearby subdivision with Reyes still in the van. 17 Fortunately for Reyes, an unidentified civilian came to help and drove Reyes to the hospital. 18 Upon investigation, it was found that the registered owner of the van was Caravan. 19 Caravan is a corporation engaged in the business of organizing travels and tours. 20 Bautista was Caravan's employee assigned to drive the van as its service driver. 21 Caravan shouldered the hospitalization expenses of Reyes. 22 Despite medical attendance, Reyes died two (2) days after the accident. 23 Respondent Ermilinda R. Abejar (Abejar), Reyes' paternal aunt and the person who raised her since she was nine (9) years old, 24 filed before the Regional Trial Court of Para�aque a Complaint 25 for damages against Bautista and Caravan. In her Complaint, Abejar alleged that Bautista was an employee of Caravan and that Caravan is the registered owner of the van that hit Reyes. 26 Summons could not be served on Bautista. 27 Thus, Abejar moved to drop Bautista as a defendant. 28 The Regional Trial Court granted her Motion. 29 After trial, the Regional Trial Court found that Bautista was grossly negligent in driving the vehicle. 30 It awarded damages in favor of Abejar, as follows: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

WHEREFORE, considering that the [respondent] was able to provide by preponderance of evidence her cause of action against the defendants, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendants JIMMY BAUTISTA and CARAVAN TRAVEL and TOURS[,] INC., to jointly and solidarity pay the plaintiff, the following, to wit: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary 1. The amount of P35,000.00 representing actual damages; 2. The amount of P300,000.00 as moral damages; 3. The amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; 4. The amount of P50,000.00 as and by way of attorney's fees; and 5. The cost of suit.

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision dated 31 July 2003 and Order dated 20 October 2003 of the Regional Trial Court, City of Para[�]aque, Branch 258, in Civil Case No. 00-0447 are AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS : Moral Damages is REDUCED to Php 200,000.00; Death Indemnity of Php 50,000.00 is awarded; The Php 35,000.00 actual damages, Php 200,000.00 moral damages, Php 30,000.00 exemplary damages and Php 50,000.00 attorney's fees shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum computed from 31 July 2003, the date of the [Regional Trial Court's] decision; and upon finality of this Decision, all the amounts due shall earn interest at the rate of 12% per annum , in lieu of 6% per annum , until full payment; and The Php 50,000.00 death indemnity shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum computed from the date of promulgation of this Decision; and upon finality of this Decision, the amount due shall earn interest at the rate of 12% per annum , in lieu of 6% per annum , until full payment. Costs against [Caravan]. SO ORDERED. 34 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

RULE 3. Parties to Civil Actions . . . . SECTION 2. Parties in Interest. � A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.

Art. 216. In default of parents or a judicially appointed guardian, the following persons shall exercise substitute parental authority over the child in the order indicated: (1) The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art. 214; 56 (2) The oldest brother or sister, over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or disqualified; and (3) The child's actual custodian, over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or disqualified . Whenever the appointment or a judicial guardian over the property of the child becomes necessary, the same order of preference shall be observed. (Emphasis supplied)

Art. 233. The person exercising substitute parental authority shall have the same authority over the person of the child as the parents. (Emphasis supplied)

This Court said: "Article 1902 of the Civil Code declares that any person who by an act or omission, characterized by fault or negligence, causes damage to another shall be liable for the damage done ... a person is liable for damage done to another by any culpable act; and by any culpable act is meant any act which is blameworthy when judged by accepted legal standards. The idea thus expressed is undoubtedly broad enough to include any rational conception of liability for the tortious acts likely to be developed in any society." The word "damage" in said article, comprehending as it does all that are embraced in its meaning, includes any and all damages that a human being may suffer in any and all the manifestations of his life: physical or material, moral or psychological, mental or spiritual, financial, economic, social, political, and religious. It is particularly noticeable that Article 1902 stresses the passive subject of the obligation to pay damages caused by his fault or negligence. The article does not limit or specify the active subjects, much less the relation that must exist between the victim of the culpa aquiliana and the person who may recover damages, thus warranting the inference that, in principle, anybody who suffers any damage from culpa aquiliana, whether a relative or not of the victim , may recover damages from the person responsible therefor [.] 75 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

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. . . . . . 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. (Emphasis supplied)

Under the fifth paragraph of Article 2180, whether or not engaged in any business or industry, an employer is liable for the torts committed by employees within the scope of his assigned tasks. But it is necessary to establish the employer-employee relationship; once this is done, the plaintiff must show, to hold the employer liable, that the employee was acting within the scope of his assigned task when the tort complained of was committed . It is only then that the employer may find it necessary to interpose the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee. . . . . Since there is paucity of evidence that ABAD was acting within the scope of the functions entrusted to him , petitioner CASTILEX had no duty to show that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in providing ABAD with a service vehicle. Thus, justice and equity require that petitioner be relieved of vicarious liability for the consequences of the negligence of ABAD in driving its vehicle. (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) 87 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The main aim of 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, responsibility therefor can be fixed on a definite individual, the registered owner.... .... A victim of recklessness on the public highways is usually without means to discover or identify the person actually causing the injury or damage. He has no means other than by a recourse to the registration in the Motor Vehicles Office to determine who is the owner. The protection that the law aims to extend to him would become illusory were the registered owner given the opportunity to escape liability by disproving his ownership. 93 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

In our view, respondent bank, as the registered owner of the vehicle, is primarily liable for Aguilar, Jr.'s death. The Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that the bank was not liable simply because (a) petitioner did not prove that Borja was acting as the bank's vice president at the time of the accident ; and (b) Borja had, according to respondent bank, already bought the car at the time of the mishap. For as long as the respondent bank remained the registered owner of the car involved in the vehicular accident, it could not escape primary liability for the death of petitioner's son . 94 (Emphasis supplied)

Without disputing the factual finding of the [Court of Appeals] that Allan was still his employee at the time of the accident, a finding which we see no reason to disturb, Oscar Jr. contends that Allan drove the jeep in his private capacity and thus, an employer's vicarious liability for the employee's fault under Article 2180 of the Civil Code cannot apply to him . The contention is no longer novel. In Aguilar Sr. v. Commercial Savings Bank , the car of therein respondent bank caused the death of Conrado Aguilar, Jr. while being driven by its assistant vice president. Despite Article 2180, we still held the bank liable for damages for the accident as said provision should defer to the settled doctrine concerning accidents involving registered motor vehicles , i.e. , that the registered owner of any vehicle, even if not used for public service, would primarily be responsible to the public or to third persons for injuries caused the latter while the vehicle was being driven on the highways or streets. We have already ratiocinated that: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary The main aim of 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, responsibility therefor can be fixed on a definite individual, the registered owner. Instances are numerous where vehicles running on public highways caused accidents or injuries to pedestrians or other vehicles without positive identification of the owner or drivers, or with very scant means of identification. It is to forestall these circumstances, so inconvenient or prejudicial to the public, that the motor vehicle registration is primarily ordained, in the interest of the determination of persons responsible for damages or injuries caused on public highways. 96 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

Neither can Filcar use the defenses available under Article 2180 of the Civil Code - that the employee acts beyond the scope of his assigned task or that it exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage - because the motor vehicle registration law, to a certain extent, modified Article 2180 of the Civil Code by making these defenses unavailable to the registered owner of the motor vehicle. Thus, for as long as Filcar is the registered owner of the car involved in the vehicular accident, it could not escape primary liability for the damages caused to Espinas. 99 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

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. 102 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

COURT : Madam Witness, do you know the reason why your driver, Jimmy Bautista, at around 10:00 o' clock in the morning of July 13, 2000 was in the vicinity of Barangay Marcelo Green, United Para�aque Subdivision 4? WITNESS : I don't have the personal capacity to answer that, Sir. Q : So you don't have any knowledge why he was there? A : Yes, Sir. 111 (Emphasis supplied)

Q : . . . when he was promoted as service driver, of course, there were certain requirements and among other else, you made mention about a driver's license. A : Yes, Sir. Q : Would you be able to show to this Honorable Court whether indeed this person did submit a driver's license to your company? A : Yes, Sir. . . . . Q : Do you recall what kind of driver's license is this? A : The Land Transportation Office. Q : Is it a professional driver's license or non-proffesional [sic] driver's license? A : Non-professional. Q : You are not sure? COURT : Non professional, professional? A : It's a non-professional. 113 (Emphasis supplied)

SEC. 24. Use of driver's license and badge. � ... . . . . No owner of a motor vehicle shall engage, employ, or hire any person to operate such motor vehicle, unless the person sought to be employed is a duly licensed professional driver.

Due diligence in the supervision of employees, on the other hand, includes the formulation of suitable rules and regulations for the guidance of employees and the issuance of proper instructions intended for the protection of the public and persons with whom the employer has relations through his or its employees and the imposition of necessary disciplinary measures upon employees in case of breach or as may be warranted to ensure the performance of acts indispensable to the business of and beneficial to their employer. To this, we add that actual implementation and monitoring of consistent compliance with said rules should be the constant concern of the employer, acting through dependable supervisors who should regularly report on their supervisory functions. In order that the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees may be deemed sufficient and plausible, it is not enough to emptily invoke the existence of said company guidelines and policies on hiring and supervision . As the negligence of the employee gives rise to the presumption of negligence on the part of the employer, the latter has the burden of proving that it has been diligent not only in the selection of employees but also in the actual supervision of their work. The mere allegation of the existence of hiring procedures and supervisory policies, without anything more, is decidedly not sufficient to overcome presumption . We emphatically reiterate our holding, as a warning to all employers, that "(t)he mere formulation of various company policies on safety without showing that they were being complied with is not sufficient to exempt petitioner from liability arising from negligence of its employees. It is incumbent upon petitioner to show that in recruiting and employing the erring driver the recruitment procedures and company policies on efficiency and safety were followed." Paying lip-service to these injunctions or merely going through the motions of compliance therewith will warrant stern sanctions from the Court. 116 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

An indispensable party is a party who has such an interest in the controversy or subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting that interest, a party who has not only an interest in the subject matter of the controversy, but also has an interest of such nature that a final decree cannot be made without affecting his interest or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. It has also been considered that an indispensable party is a person in whose absence there cannot be a determination between the parties already before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable. Further, an indispensable party is one who must be included in an action before it may properly go forward. A person is not an indispensable party, however, if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is separable from the interest of the other parties, so that it will not necessarily be directly or injuriously affected by a decree which does complete justice between them. Also, a person is not an indispensable party if his presence would merely permit complete relief between him and those already parties to the action, or if he has no interest in the subject matter of the action. It is not a sufficient reason to declare a person to be an indispensable party that his presence will avoid multiple litigation. 123 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Na ang aking kontrata ay nagkakahalaga ng P35,000-00 [sic] sa lahat ng nagamit na materiales at labor nito kasama ang lote na ibinayad sa akin ni Gng. ERMILINDA REYES ABEJAR na siyang aking kakontrata sa pagsasagawa ng naturang paglilibingan. 127 (Emphasis supplied)

[ATTY. LIM] : Did you incur any expenses? A : Meron po . Q : How much did you spend for the death of Jesmarian [sic] Reyes? A : 'Yun pong P35,000.00 na pagpapalibing at saka ... Q : You said that you spent P35,000.00. Do you have any evidence or proof that you spent that amount? A : Meron po. Q : Showing to you this sort of certification. What relation has this... A : 'Yan po' yung contractor nagumawa. Q : Contractor of what? A : 'Yan po' yung mismong binilhan ko ng lupa at nitso . . . . . ATTY. LIM : There is a signature at the top of the printed name Julian Penalosa [sic]. Whose signature is this? A : 'Yan po' yung mismong contractor. . . . . Q : Did you see him sign this? A : Opo . 128 (Emphasis supplied)

ARTICLE 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances[.]

ARTICLE 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence.

ARTICLE 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. In addition: . . . . � (3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. (Emphasis supplied)

When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum . No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages, except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where the demand is established with reasonable certainty , the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code), but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 6% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit. 146 (Emphasis supplied)

1 CIVIL CODE, art. 2180 provides: 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. . . . . 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 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. 2 CIVIL CODE, art. 2176 provides: 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. 3 412 Phil. 834, 839-841 (2001) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division]. 4 686 Phil. 799, 817 (2012) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division]. 5 688 Phil. 430, 436-442 (2012) [Per J. Brion, Second Division]. 6 G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2014, 726 SCRA 505, 518-521 [Per J. Perez, Second Division]. 7 Rollo , pp. 91-131. The Petition was filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. 8 Id. at 133-165. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and concurred in by Associate Justices Renato C. Dacudao (Chair) and Lucas P. Bersamin (now Associate Justice of this court) of the Twelfth Division. 9 Id. at 166-167. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and concurred in by Associate Justices Renato C. Dacudao (Chair) and Lucas P. Bersamin (now Associate Justice of this court) of the Twelfth Division. 10 Id. at 129, Petition for Review on Certiorari. 11 Id. at 134, Court of Appeals Decision. 12 Id. 13 TSN, May 31, 2002, p. 948. 14 RTC records, p. 445, Regional Trial Court Decision. 15 Id. 16 CA rollo , p. 31, Regional Trial Court Decision. 17 Id. 18 Id. 19 Rollo , p. 134, Court of Appeals Decision. 20 RTC records, pp. 2, Complaint; and 47, Answer with Counterclaim. 21 Rollo , p. 134, Court of Appeals Decision. 22 Id. at 139. 23 Id. at 134. 24 Id. at 138. cralawred 25 RTC records, pp. 1-5. 26 Id. at 2. cralawred 27 CA rollo , p. 48, Caravan's Reply Brief. 28 Rollo , p. 138, Court of Appeals Decision. 29 Rollo , p. 138, Court of Appeals Decision. 30 RTC records, p. 447, Regional Trial Court Decision. The trial court included Bautista in the Decision even though it already granted Abejar's motion to drop him as a defendant. 31 Id. at 449. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 00-0447. The Decision, promulgated on July 31, 2003, was penned by Judge Raul E. De Leon of Branch 258. 32 Id. at 450-462. 33 Id. at 513. 34 Rollo , p. 162, Court of Appeals Decision. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 81694. 35 Id. at 166-167, Court of Appeals Resolution. 36 Id. at 231, Caravan's Memorandum. 37 Id. 38 Id. at 232. 39 Id. at 42, Petition for Review on Certiorari. cralawred 40 Id. at 42-43. 41 Id. at 42. 42 Id. at 31. 43 Id. at 43. 44 Id. at 44. 45 Id. at 233, Caravan's Memorandum. 46 CIVIL CODE, art. 2206(3) provides: ARTICLE 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. In addition: . . . . (3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. 47 Rollo , pp. 45-46, Petition for Review on Certiorari. 48 Id. at 50. 49 Id. at 50-51. 50 Id. at 43. 51 Id. at 203, Abejar's Memorandum. 52 Id. at 206. 53 Id. at 207. 54 RTC records, pp. 1-3, Complaint. 55 National Housing Authority v. Magat, 611 Phil. 742, 747 (2009) [Per J. Carpio, First Division], citing Shipside Inc. v. Court of Appeals , 404 Phil. 981, 998 (2001) [Per J. Melo, Third Division]. 56 FAMILY CODE, art. 214 provides: Art. 214. In case of death, absence or unsuitability of the parents, substitute parental authority shall be exercised by the surviving grandparent. In case several survive, the one designated by the court, taking into account the same consideration mentioned in the preceding article, shall exercise the authority. 57 RTC records, pp. 179, Abejar's Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits; 187, Death Certificate of Edwin Cortez issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Calamba, Laguna; 188, Death Certificate of Leonora R. Landicho issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Candelaria, Quezon; and 189, Certificate of Death of Leonora R. Landicho issued by the Parish of San Pedro Bautista, Candelaria, Quezon. 58 Id. at 179, Abejar's Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits; 190, Death Certificate of Leticia Cortez Reyes issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Tiong, Quezon; and 191, Certificate of Death of Domingo Estiva Reyes issued by the City Civil Registrar of Manila. 59 TSN, April 10, 2002, p. 760. 60 TSN, June 22, 2001, p. 605. 61 FAMILY CODE, art. 220 provides: Art. 220. The parents and those exercising parental authority shall have with the respect to their unemancipated children on wards the following rights and duties: (1) To keep them in their company, to support, educate and instruct them by right precept and good example, and to provide for their upbringing in keeping with their means; (2) To give them love and affection, advice and counsel, companionship and understanding; (3) To provide them with moral and spiritual guidance, inculcate in them honesty, integrity, self- discipline, self-reliance, industry and thrift, stimulate their interest in civic affairs, and inspire in them compliance with the duties of citizenship; (4) To furnish them with good and wholesome educational materials, supervise their activities, recreation and association with others, protect them from bad company, and prevent them from acquiring habits detrimental to their health, studies and morals; (5) To represent them in all matters affecting their interests; (6) To demand from them respect and obedience; (7) To impose discipline on them as may be required under the circumstances; and (8) To perform such other duties as are imposed by law upon parents and guardians. 62 TSN, June 22, 2001, p. 607. 63 Id. 64 RTC records, p. 2, Complaint. 65 359 Phil. 18, 26-27 (1998) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division]. 66 440 Phil. 864, 880 (2002) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division]. 67 412 Phil. 834, 835 (2001) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division]. 68 FAMILY CODE, art. 236. 69 Rollo , p. 138, Court of Appeals Decision. 70 CIVIL CODE (1889), art. 1902 provides: ARTICLE 1902. Any person who by an act or omission causes damage to another by his fault or negligence shall be liable for the damage so done. 71 CIVIL CODE, art. 2176, first sentence, provides: ARTICLE 2176: Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. 72 133 Phil. 825 (1968) [Per J. Zaldivar, En Banc]. 73 Id. at 832-833. 74 Id. at 831. This court ruled that while Article 1902 of the old Civil Code (now Article 2176) does not require any relation between the plaintiff and the victim of the quasi-delict, Article 2206(3) of the Civil Code does. Hence, the recovery of moral damages requires that the plaintiff is the victim's spouse, legitimate or illegitimate descendant or ascendant (Id. at 833). 75 Id. at 831. 76 See Filcar Transport Services v. Espinas , 688 Phil. 430, 435 (2012) [Per J. Brion, Second Division]. 77 102 Phil. 103 (1957) [Per J. Labrador, En Banc]. 78 TRANSP. & TRAFFIC CODE, sec. 5 provides: SECTION 5. Compulsory Registration of Motor Vehicles. - (a) All motor vehicles and trailer of any type used or operated on or upon any highway of the Philippines must be registered with the Bureau of Land Transportation for the current year in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 79 Erezo, et al. v. Jepte , 102 Phil. 103, 108 (1957) [Per J. Labrador, En Banc]. 80 Id. 81 378 Phil. 1009 (1999) [Per C. J. Davide, Jr., First Division]. 82 Id. at 1016-1018. 83 Id. at 1012-1013. 84 Id. at 1018. 85 Id. at 1022-1023. 86 Id. at 1018. 87 Id. at 1017-1022. 88 Aguilar, Sr. v. Commercial Savings Bank , 412 Phil. 834, 839-841 (2001) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division]. 89 Id. at 835-837. 90 Id. at 837. 91 Id. at 841. 92 Aguilar, Sr. v. Commercial Savings Bank , 412 Phil. 834, 839-841 (2001) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division]. 93 Id. at 839-840. 94 Id. at 841. 95 686 Phil. 799 (2012) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division]. 96 Id. at 817. 97 688 Phil. 430 (2012) [Per J. Brion, Second Division]. 98 Id. at 441. 99 Id. 100 G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2014, 726 SCRA 505, 518-521 [Per J. Perez, Second Division]. 101 Filcar Transport Services v. Espinas , 688 Phil. 430, 441 (2012) [Per J. Brion, Second Division]. 102 Id. at 441-442. 103 Spouses Algura v. The Local Government Unit of the City of Naga , 536 Phil. 819, 835 (2006) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third Division]. 104 Del Carmen, Jr. v. Bacoy , 686 Phil. 799, 817 (2012) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division]. 105 RTC records, p. 182. 106 Id. at 177, Abejar's Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence. 107 A reading of Article 2180 reveals that in order for an employer to be liable for the acts of its employee, it is required that the employment relationship is established, that the employee acted within the scope of his or her assigned tasks, and that the employer failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of the employee. See Castilex Industrial Corp. v. Vasquez, Jr. , 378 Phil. 1009, 1017 (1999) [Per C.J. Davide, Jr., First Division] and Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 104408, June 21, 1993, 223 SCRA 521, 539 [Per J. Regalado, Second Division]. 108 RTC records, pp 2, Complaint; and 47, Answer with Counterclaim. 109 TSN, September 25, 2002, pp. 1247-1248. 110 Id. at 1284. 111 Id. at 1284-1285. 112 Id. at 1274-1275. 113 Id. at 1273-1275. 114 RTC records, pp. 227-229, Caravan's Formal Offer of Evidence. 115 G.R. No. 104408, June 21, 1993, 223 SCRA 521 [Per J. Regalado, Second Division]. 116 Id. at 540-541. 117 Filcar Transport Services v. Espinas , 688 Phil. 430, 439 (2012) [Per J. Brion, Second Division]; Aguilar, Sr. v. Commercial Savings Bank , 412 Phil. 834, 839-841 (2001) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division]. 118 1997 RULES OF CIV. PROC., Rule 3, sec. 7 provides: RULE 3. Parties to Civil Actions . . . . SECTION 7. Compulsory Joinder of Indispensable Parties. � Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. 119 1997 RULES OF CIV. PROC., Rule 3, sec. 8 provides: RULE 3. Parties to Civil Actions SECTION 8. Necessary Party. � A necessary party is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action. 120 Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals , 181 Phil. 432, 440-441 (1979) [Per J. Guerrero, First Division]. 121 Lucman v. Malawi , 540 Phil. 289, 302 (2006) [Per J. Tinga, Third Division]. 122 345 Phil. 250 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division]. 123 Id. at 269-270. 124 RTC records, p. 186. 125 Valencia v. Atty. Cabanting , 273 Phil. 534, 545 (1991) [Per Curiam, En Banc]. 126 RTC records, pp. 178-179, Abejar's Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits. 127 Id. at 186, Certificate issued by Julian Pe�aloza. 128 TSN, June 22, 2001, pp. 615-616. 129 Kierulf v. Court of Appeals , 336 Phil. 414, 423 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division]. 130 Pangonorom v. People , 495 Phil. 195, 204 (2005) [Per J. Carpio, First Division], citing China Airlines, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals , 453 Phil. 959, 978 (2003) [Per J. Carpio, First Division]; Romago Electric Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals , 388 Phil. 964, 974-975 (2000) [Per J. Gonzaga-Reyes, Third Division]; Austria v. Court of Appeals , 384 Phil. 408, 415 (2000) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division]; and Halili v. Court of Appeals , 350 Phil. 906, 912 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban, First Division]. 131 See Del Carmen, Jr. v. Bacoy , 686 Phil. 799 (2012) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division]. 132 Mendoza v. Casumpang, et al. , 684 Phil. 459, 462 (2012) [Per J. Abad, Third Division]. 133 The Receiver For North Negros Sugar Company, Inc. v. Yba�ez, et al. , 133 Phil. 825, 833 (1968) [Per J. Zaldivar, En Banc]. 134 See Murdock, Sr. and Murdock v. Chuidian , 99 Phil. 821, 824 (1956) [Per J. Padilla, En Banc]. 135 FAMILY CODE, art. 220(1). 136 FAMILYCODE, art. 220(1). 137 FAMILY CODE, art. 220(2). 138 FAMILY CODE, art. 220(2). 139 FAMILY CODE, art. 220(2). 140 FAMILY CODE, art. 220(7). 141 Kierulf v. Court of Appeals , 336 Phil. 414, 432 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division]. 142 Id. 143 Id. 144 CIVIL CODE, art. 2208 (1) and (2). 145 G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439 [Per J. Peralta, En Banc]. 146 Id. at 458.

BRION, J. :

1 Reyes' parents and paternal grandparents are dead. The whereabouts of her maternal grandparents are unknown. There is no record that she has brothers or sisters. Abejar supported Reyes' education, provided her personal needs, and treated her as her own daughter. Rollo , pp. 719, 187-191, 605, 760. 2 Ponencia , p. 7. 3 Ibid. 4 Id. at 7-9. 5 Arturo Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. 1. p. 603 (1990). 6 Ibid. 7 FAMILY CODE, Article 216 (3). 8 Id. , Article 228 (3). 9 Oscar M. Herrera, Remedial Law, Vol. I, p. 515 (2007). 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 CIVIL CODE, Articles 2229 and 2231. 13 Rollo , pp. 31 and 953. 14 102 Phil. 103, 107 (1957). 15 Act No. 3992, as amended, Chapter II, Art. 1, Sec. 5(a). 16 Erezo v Jepte, supra note 14, at 108. 17 G.R. No. 174156, June 20, 2012, 674 SCRA 117. 18 Id. at 128-129. 19 Ibid. 20 Mendoza v. Gomez , G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2014, 726 SCRA 505, 519-521. 21 G.R. No. 174161, February 18, 2015.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

• G.R. No. 212878, February 01, 2016 - MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILS., INC., MARLOW NAVIGATION CO., LTD., W. BOCKSTLEGEL REEDEREI (GERMANY), ORLANDO D. ALIDIO AND ANTONIO GALVEZ, JR., Petitioners, v. WILFREDO L. CABATAY, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 213910, February 03, 2016 - VINSON* D. YOUNG A.K.A. BENZON ONG AND BENNY YOUNG A.K.A. BENNY ONG, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 198994, February 03, 2016 - IRIS MORALES, Petitioners, v. ANA MARIA OLONDRIZ, ALFONSO JUAN OLONDRIZ, JR., ALEJANDRO MORENO OLONDRIZ, ISABEL ROSA OLONDRIZ AND FRANCISCO JAVIER MARIA OLONDRIZ, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 181186, February 03, 2016 - SIGUION REYNA MONTECILLO AND ONGSIAKO LAW OFFICES, Petitioners, v. HON. NORMA CHIONLO-SIA, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 56 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LUCENA CITY, AND THE TESTATE ESTATE OF DECEASED SUSANO RODRIGUEZ, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL ADMINISTRATRIX, Respondents.
• A.M. No. RTJ-13-2361 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4144-RTJ], February 02, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. PRESIDING JUDGE JOSEPH CEDRICK O. RUIZ, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 61, MAKATI CITY, Respondent.
• OCA I.P.I. No. 13-4148-P, February 10, 2016 - SPS. JOSE AND MELINDA CAILIPAN, Complainants, v. LORENZO O. CASTA�EDA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 96, QUEZON CITY, Respondents
• G.R. No. 205814, February 15, 2016 - SPOUSES ALFREDO TEA�O* AND VERONICA TEA�O, Petitioners, v. THE MUNICIPALITY OF NAVOTAS, REPRESENTED BY MAYOR TOBIAS REYNALD M. TIANGCO, AND MUNICIPAL TREASURER MANUEL T. ENRIQUEZ, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 195145, February 10, 2016 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES SULPICIO AND PATRICIA RAMOS, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 192075, February 10, 2016 - ROBERTO PALO Y DE GULA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 194548, February 10, 2016 - JUANA VDA. DE ROJALES, SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, REPRESENTED BY CELERINA ROJALES-SEVILLA, Petitioner, v. MARCELINO DIME, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, REPRESENTED BY BONIFACIA MANIBAY, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 218396, February 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NESTOR ROXAS Y CASTRO, Accused-Appellant.
• G.R. No. 208343, February 03, 2016 - SPOUSES CEFERINO C. LAUS AND MONINA P. LAUS, AND SPOUSES ANTONIO O. KOH AND ELISA T. KOH, Petitioners, v. OPTIMUM SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Respondent.
• G.R. No. 199194, February 10, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JOSE B. SARE�OGON, JR., Respondent.
• A.C. No. 7618, February 02, 2016 - SPOUSES JONATHAN AND ESTER LOPEZ, Complainants, v. ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 199371, February 03, 2016 - PETRON LPG DEALERS ASSOCIATION AND TOTAL GAZ LPG DEALERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioners, v. NENA C. ANG, ALISON C. SY, NELSON C. ANG, RENATO C. ANG, AND/OR OCCUPANTS OF NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 208451, February 03, 2016 - MANILA MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY, INC., Petitioner, v. EZARD D. LLUZ, NORMAN CORRAL, ERWIN FUGABAN, VALDIMAR BALISI, EMILIO FABON, JOHN MARK APLICADOR, MICHAEL CURIOSO, JUNLIN ESPARES, GAVINO FARINAS, AND WARD TRADING AND SERVICES, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 190846, February 03, 2016 - TOMAS P. TAN, JR., Petitioner, v. JOSE G. HOSANA, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 204970, February 01, 2016 - SPOUSES CLAUDIO AND CARMENCITA TRAYVILLA, Petitioners, v. BERNARDO SEJAS AND JUVY PAGLINAWAN, REPRESENTED BY JESSIE PAGLINAWAN, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 205764, February 03, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEE QUIJANO ENAD, Accused-Appellant.
• G.R. No. 196651, February 03, 2016 - UWE MATHAEUS, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES ERIC AND GENEVIEVE MEDEQUISO, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 207355, February 03, 2016 - JENNIFER A. AGUSTIN-SE AND ROHERMIA J. JAMSANI-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioners, v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, AND JOHN I.C. TURALBA, ACTING DEPUTY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 209212, February 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plintiff and Appellee, v. ROMEL SAPITULA Y PACULAN, Accused-Appellant.
• G.R. No. 191185, February 01, 2016 - GUILBEMER FRANCO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
• A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3210-RTJ, February 03, 2016 - JUVY P. CIOCON-REER, ANGELINA P. CIOCON, MARIVIT P. CIOCON-HERNANDEZ, AND REMBERTO C. KARAAN, SR., Complainants, v. JUDGE ANTONIO C. LUBAO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 22, GENERAL SANTOS CITY, Respondent.
• A.C. No. 7594, February 09, 2016 - ADELPHA E. MALABED, Complainant, v. ATTY. MELJOHN B. DE LA PE�A, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 207535, February 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICARDO LAGBO A.K.A RICARDO LABONG Y MENDOZA, Accused-Appellant.
• G.R. No. 201073, February 10, 2016 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. Petitioner, v. PAL EMPLOYEES SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent.
• G.R. No. 180402, February 10, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 208021, February 03, 2016 - OSCAR S. VILLARTA, Petitioner, v. GAUDIOSO TALAVERA, JR., Respondent.
• G.R. No. 193748, February 03, 2016 - MERVIC REALTY, INC. AND VICCY REALTY, INC., Petitioners, v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 181789, February 03, 2016 - GMA NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, CENTRAL CATV, INC., PHILIPPINE HOME CABLE HOLDINGS, INC., AND PILIPINO CABLE CORPORATION, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 202978, February 01, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICTOR P. PADIT, Accused-Appellant.
• A.C. No. 9807, February 02, 2016 - ERLINDA SISTUAL, FLORDELISA S. LEYSA, LEONISA S. ESPABO AND ARLAN C. SISTUAL, Complainants, v. ATTY. ELIORDO OGENA, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 180642, February 03, 2016 - NUEVA ECIJA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INCORPORATED (NEECO I), Petitioner, v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 194134, February 01, 2016 - JOSE ROMULO L. FRANCISCO, Petitioner, v. LOYOLA PLANS CONSOLIDATED INC., JESUSA CONCEPCION AND GERARDO B. MONZON, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 187417, February 24, 2016 - CHRISTINE JOY CAPIN-CADIZ, Petitioner, v. BRENT HOSPITAL AND COLLEGES, INC., Respondent.
• G.R. No. 170192, February 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MARISSA BAYKER, Accused-Appellant.
• G.R. No. 202187, February 10, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ELISEO D. VILLAMOR, Appellant.
• G.R. No. 210542, February 24, 2016 - ROSALINA CARODAN, Petitioner, v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 215014, February 29, 2016 - REBECCA FULLIDO, Petitioner, v. GINO GRILLI, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 215107, February 24, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE TOLL REGULATORY BOARD, Petitioner, v. C.C. UNSON COMPANY, INC., Respondent.
• A.M. No. P-15-3300 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No.12-4011-P), February 10, 2016 - JOSEPHINE E. LAM, Complainant, v. NILA M. GARCIA, JUNIOR PROCESS SERVER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, SIATON, NEGROS ORIENTAL, Respondent.
• A.M. No. P-16-3423 [Formerly A.M. No. 13-9-89-MTCC], February 16, 2016 - RE: CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATION IRREGULARITY (IMPERSONATION) OF MS. ELENA T. VALDEROSO, CASH CLERK II, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, ANTIPOLO CITY.
• G.R. No. 210233, February 15, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES RODOLFO SY AND BELEN SY, LOLITA SY, AND SPOUSES TEODORICO AND LEAH ADARNA, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 206256, February 24, 2016 - ALBERT C. AUSTRIA, Petitioner, v. CRYSTAL SHIPPING, INC., AND/OR LARVIK SHIPPING A/S, AND EMILY MYLA A. CRISOSTOMO, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 202695, February 29, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. GJM PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC., Respondent.
• A.C. No. 5325, February 09, 2016 - NEMESIO FLORAN AND CARIDAD FLORAN, Complainants, v. ATTY. ROY PRULE EDIZA, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 201927, February 17, 2016 - VICENTE D. CABANTING AND LALAINE V. CABANTING, Petitioners, v. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., Respondent.
• G.R. No. 184332, February 17, 2016 - ANNA TENG, Petitioner, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC) AND TING PING LAY, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 198434, February 29, 2016 - HEIRS OF LEANDRO NATIVIDAD AND JULIANA V. NATIVIDAD, Petitioners, v. JUANA MAURICIO-NATIVIDAD, AND SPOUSES JEAN NATIVIDAD CRUZ AND JERRY CRUZ, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 182629, February 24, 2016 - MERCEDES N. ABELLA, MA. THERESA A. BALLESTEROS AND MARIANITO N. ABELLA, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF FRANCISCA C. SAN JUAN namely: GLICERIA SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, BENIGNA SAN JUAN VASQUEZ, EVARISTO SAN JUAN, NIEVES SAN JUAN LUSTRE AND MATILDE SAN JUAN QUILONIO, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 207389, February 17, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FEDERICO DE LA CRUZ Y SANTOS, Accused-Appellant.
• G.R. No. 216566, February 17, 2016 - MAGELLAN AEROSPACE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE AIR FORCE, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 175760, February 17, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SOGOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 199537, February 10, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ANDREA TAN, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 179287, February 01, 2016 - PCI JIMMY M. FORTALEZA AND SPO2 FREDDIE A. NATIVIDAD, Petitioners, v. HON. RAUL M. GONZALEZ IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE AND ELIZABETH N. OROLA VDA. DE SALABAS, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 182090 - ELIZABETH N. OROLA VDA. DE SALABAS, Petitioner, v. HON. EDUARDO R. ERMITA, HON. MANUEL B. GAITE, P/INSP. CLARENCE DONGAIL, P/INSP. JONATHAN LORILLA,1 PO3 ALLEN WINSTON HULLEZA AND PO2 BERNARDO CIMATU, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 206758, February 17, 2016 - MARICEL S. NONAY, Petitioner, v. BAHIA SHIPPING SERVICES, INC., FRED OLSEN LINES AND CYNTHIA MENDOZA, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 195026, February 22, 2016 - CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, DR. MARIA LUISA R. SOLIVEN, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 174462, February 10, 2016 - PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (POTC), PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION (PHILCOMSAT), Petitioners, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (3rd DIVISION), REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), Respondents.
• G.R. No. 199683, February 10, 2016 - ARLENE T. SAMONTE, VLADIMIR P. SAMONTE, MA. AUREA S. ELEPANO, Petitioners, v. LA SALLE GREENHILLS, INC., BRO. BERNARD S. OCA, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 183486, February 24, 2016 - THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, LIMITED, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION AND CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION (NOW BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS), Respondents.
• G.R. No. 194960, February 03, 2016 - PRO BUILDERS, INC., Petitioner, v. TG UNIVERSAL BUSINESS VENTURES, INC., Respondent.
• G.R. No. 203678, February 17, 2016 - CONCORDE CONDOMINIUM, INC., BY ITSELF AND COMPRISING THE UNIT OWNERS OF CONCORDE CONDOMINIUM BUILDING, Petitioner, v. AUGUSTO H. BACULIO; NEW PPI CORPORATION; ASIAN SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY AND ITS SECURITY GUARDS; ENGR. NELSON B. MORALES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS BUILDING OFFICIAL OF THE MAKATI CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT; SUPT. RICARDO C. PERDIGON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CITY FIRE MARSHAL OF THE MAKATI CITY FIRE STATION; F/C SUPT. SANTIAGO E. LAGUNA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF FIRE PROTECTION-NCR, AND ANY AND ALL PERSONS ACTING WITH OR UNDER THEM, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 174481, February 10, 2016 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CRISTY DIMAANO Y TIPDAS, Accused-Appellant.
• G.R. No. 218867, February 17, 2016 - SPOUSES EDMOND LEE AND HELEN HUANG, Petitioners, v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 190534, February 10, 2016 - C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., RONALD AUSTRIA, AND ABU DHABI NATIONAL TANKER CO., Petitioners, v. LEGAL HEIRS OF THE LATE GODOFREDO REPISO, REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE LUZVIMINDA REPISO, Respondents.
• A.C. No. 10945 (Formerly CBD 09-2507), February 23, 2016 - ANGELITO RAMISCAL AND MERCEDES ORZAME, Complainants, v. ATTY. EDGAR S. ORRO, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 208406, February 29, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ALLAN RODRIGUEZ Y GRAJO, Appellant.
• G.R. No. 177382, February 17, 2016 - VIVA SHIPPING LINES, INC., Petitioner, v. KEPPEL PHILIPPINES MINING, INC., METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, CITY OF BATANGAS, CITY OF LUCENA, PROVINCE OF QUEZON, ALEJANDRO OLIT, NIDA MONTILLA, PIO HERNANDEZ, EUGENIO BACULO, AND HARLAN BACALTOS, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 203322, February 24, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. REMAN SARIEGO, Appellant.
• G.R. No. 186102, February 24, 2016 - NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF TEODULO EBESA, NAMELY: PORFERIA L. EBESA, EFREN EBESA, DANTE EBESA AND CYNTHIA EBESA, AND ATTY. FORTUNATO VELOSO, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 192233, February 17, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SPO1 CATALINO GONZALES, JR., Accused-Appellant.
• A.M. No. P-15-3393 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4055-P], February 23, 2016 - SEGUNDINA P. NOCES-DE LEON AND LEONOR P. ALAVE, Petitioners, v. TERENCIO G. FLORENDO, SHERIFF IV, BRANCH 21, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, VIGAN CITY, ILOCOS SUR, Respondent.
• IPI No. 15-35-SB-J, February 23, 2016 - RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT DATED JULY 13, 2015 OF ALFONSO V. UMALI, JR., Complainant, v. HON. JOSE R. HERNANDEZ, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondent.
• A.M. No. P-15-3361 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3381-P], February 23, 2016 - ATTY. JOHN V. AQUINO, Petitioner, v. ELENA S. ALCASID, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, OLONGAPO CITY, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 185603, February 10, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. LOCAL SUPERIOR OF THE INSTITUTE OF THE SISTERS OF THE SACRED HEART OF JESUS OF RAGUSA, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 208404, February 24, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICENTE LUGNASIN AND DEVINCIO GUERRERO, Accused-Appellants.
• G.R. No. 183529, February 24, 2016 - OFELIA C. CAUNAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 207816, February 24, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAUL YAMON TUANDO, Accused-Appellant.
• G.R. No. 171041, February 10, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MOLDEX REALTY, INC., Respondent.
• G.R. No. 188720, February 23, 2016 - QUEZON CITY PTCA FEDERATION, INC., Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY JESLI A. LAPUS, Respondent.
• A.C. No. 8037, February 17, 2016 - RE: DECISION DATED AUGUST 19, 2008, 3RD DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS IN CA-G.R. SP NO. 79904 [HON. DIONISIO DONATO T. GARCIANO, ET AL. V. HON. PATERNO G. TIAMSON, ETC., ET AL.], Petitioner, v. ATTY. JOSE DE G. FERRER, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 220481, February 17, 2016 - VICTOR S. LIMLINGAN AND EMMANUEL A. LEYCO, Petitioners, v. ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, INC., Respondent.; G.R. No. 220503 - ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, INC., Petitioner, v. VICTOR S. LIMLINGAN AND EMMANUEL A. LEYCO, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 208976, February 22, 2016 - THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. LEOVIGILDO DELOS REYES, JR., Respondent.
• A.C. No. 10605, February 17, 2016 - BIENVENIDO T. CANLAPAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. WILLIAM B. BALAYO, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 209180, February 24, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. REGHIS M. ROMERO II AND OLIVIA LAGMAN ROMERO, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 209253 - OLIVIA LAGMAN ROMERO, Petitioner, v. REGHIS M. ROMERO II, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 208948, February 24, 2016 - JOSE B. LURIZ, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 173921, February 24, 2016 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. ISAGANI DAWAL, LORNA CONCEPCION, AND BONIFACIO SINOBAGO, Respondents.; G.R. No. 173952 - ISAGANI DAWAL, LORNA CONCEPCION, AND BONIFACIO SINOBAGO, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., AVELINO L. ZAPANTA, AND CESAR B. LAMBERTE, Respondents.
• A.M. No. P-16-3419 [Formerly OCAIPI No. 11-3648-P], February 23, 2016 - AUGUSTO V. SANTOS, Complainant, v. SHERIFF IV ANTONIO V. LEA�O, JR., SHERIFF III BENJIE E. LACSINA, SHERIFF III ALVIN S. PINEDA, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 184288, February 16, 2016 - ERIC N. ESTRELLADO AND JOSSIE M. BORJA, Petitioners, v. KARINA CONSTANTINO DAVID, THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, HIPOLITO R. GABORNI AND ROBERTO S. SE, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 175210, February 01, 2016 - MARIO JOSE E. SERENO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (APMP), Petitioner, v. COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND RELATED MATTERS (CTRM) OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NEDA), COMPOSED OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE NEDA SECRETARIAT, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARIES OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, FINANCE, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AGRICULTURE, ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION, LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, AGRARIAN REFORM, THE GOVERNOR OF THE BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TARIFF COMMISSION, AND BRENDA R. MENDOZA IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE TRADE, INDUSTRY & UTILITIES STAFF, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 170631, February 10, 2016 - CARAVAN TRAVEL AND TOURS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Petitioner, v. ERMILINDA R. ABEJAR, Respondent.
• A.C. No. 8667, February 03, 2016 - INOCENCIO I. BALISTOY, Petitioner, v. ATTY. FLORENCIO A. BRON, Respondent.
• IPI No. 14-222-CA-J, February 23, 2016 - RE: COMPLAINT OF ATTY. MARIANO R. PEFIANCO AGAINST JUSTICES MARIA ELISA SEMPIO DIY, RAMON PAUL L. HERNANDO, AND CARMELITA SALANDANAN-MANAHAN, OF THE COURT OF APPEALS CEBU.
• G.R. No. 193176, February 24, 2016 - PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RENATO D. TAYAG, ISMAEL M. REINOSO, GENEROSO TANSECO, MANUEL MORALES, RUBEN B. ANCHETA, GERONIMO Z. VELASCO, TROADIO T. QUIAZON, JR., FERNANDO MARAMAG, EDGARDO TORDESILLAS, ARTURO R. TANCO, JR., GERARDO SICAT, PANFILO O. DOMINGO, POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, MANUEL B. SYQUIO, RAFAEL M. ATAYDE, HONORIO POBLADOR, JR., GEORGE T. SCHOLEY,1 TIRSO ANTIPORDA, JR., CARLOS L. INDUCTIVO, AND TEODORO VALENCIA, Respondents.

• SIMPLE LOAN
• GUARANTEE AND SURETYSHIP
• REAL SECURITY
• GENERAL PRINCIPLES
• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
• CONCEPT OF THE STATE
• RECOGNITION
• JURISDICTION
• THE RIGHT OF LEGATION
• STATELESSNESS
• TREATMENT OF ALIENS
• INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES
• HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
• ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
• TORTS DIGESTS
• LABOR DIGESTS

Caravan Travel and Tours v. Abejar

 Caravan Travel and Tours v. Abejar, 

G.R. No. 170631, 

February 10, 2016.

DOCTRINE: In cases where both the registered-owner rule and Article 2180 apply, the

plaintiff must first establish that the employer is the registered owner of the vehicle in

question. Once the plaintiff successfully proves ownership, there arises a disputable

presumption that the requirements of Article 2180 have been proven. The burden of proof

shifts to the defendant to show that no liability under Article 2180 has arisen.

Jesmarian Reyes was walking along the west-bound land of Sampaguita Street,

Paranaque City. An L-300 Mitsubishi van was travelling along the west-bound lane,

opposite Reyes. To avoid an incoming traffic, the van swerved to its left and hit Reyes.

Alex Espinosa went to her aid and loaded her in the back of the van. He told the driver of

the van, Jimmy Bautista (Bautista), to bring Reyes to the hospital. However, he has left

the van parked inside a nearby subdivision with Reyes still in the van. Fortunately, an

unidentified civilian came to help Reyes. Caravan, a corporation engaged in the business

of organizing travels and tours, was the registered owner of the van driven by Bautista

who is Caravan’s employee working as its service driver.  It shouldered the hospitalization

expenses of Reyes, but Reyes died two (2) days after the accident. Abejar, Reyes’

paternal aunt and the person who raised here since nine (9) years old, filed a complaint

for damages against Bautista and Caravan, alleging that Bautista is the driver of the van

and Caravan is the registered owner of the said van that hit her niece. Summons could

not be served on Bautista, thus Abejar moved to drop Bautista as a defendant which was

granted. 

The RTC found Bautista was grossly negligent in driving the vehicle and

awarded damages in favor of Abejar. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC

with modification. Caravan argued that Abejar offered no documentary or testimonial

evidence to prove that Bautista acted within the scope of his assigned tasks when the

accident occurred. According to Caravan, Bautista’s tasks only pertained to the transport

of company personnel or products, and when the accident occurred, he had not been

transporting personnel or delivering products of and for the company. It also argued that

it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervisions of

its employees. It further claims that it should not be held solidarily liable with Bautista

since he was already dropped as a party. Abejar counters that Caravan failed to provide

proof that it exercised the requisite diligence in the selection and supervision of Bautista.

She further argued that since Caravan is the registered owner of the van, it is directly,

primarily and solidarily liable for the tortious acts of its driver.

Whether or not Caravan should be held liable as an employer pursuant to Article 2180 of

the Civil Code.

Yes, Caravan is liable for quasi-delict pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code. It was

not fatal to Abejar’s cause that she did not adduce proof that Bautista acted within the

scope of his authority, it was sufficient that Caravan was proven as the registered owner

of the van that hit Reyes. In cases where both the registered-owner rule and Article 2180

apply, the plaintiff must first establish that the employer is the registered owner of the

vehicle in question. Once the plaintiff successfully proves ownership, there arises a

disputable presumption that the requirements of Article 2180 have been proven.

Therefore, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to show that no liability under Article

2180 has arisen. In this case, Caravan admitted that Bautista was its employee at the

time of the accident, however it was unable to prove that Bautista was acting outside the

scope of his assigned tasks. It presented no positive evidence to show that Bautista was

acting in his private capacity at the time of the incident. Furthermore, it failed to prove that

it exercises the requisite diligence as it claimed that it employed a person holding a

nonprofessional driver’s license to operated another’s motor vehicle in violation of the

Land Transportation and Traffic Code.

No comments:

Post a comment.

Caravan Travel and Tours International vs. Abejar [DECISION]

Caravan travel and tours international, inc., petitioner, vs. ermilinda r. abejar, respondent., g.r. no. 170631 | 2016-02-10.

• Article 2180, Civil Code: Vicarious Liability of Employer
• Vicarious liability of employers
• Damages in case of death; Persons exercising substitute parental authority (guardian) possess the right to be indemnified for their ward's death
• Article 2180, Vicarious Liability; to hold the employer liable, must show that the employee was acting within the scope of his assigned task when the tort was committed
• Article 2180 (Vicarious liability of employer) vis-a-vis the Registered-owner rule in motor vehicle accidents

This agreement is between Mylegalwhiz and you as Subscriber who declares that he/she is of legal age and otherwise authorized and qualified to enter into a binding agreement with Mylegalwhiz.

By accessing your account ("Account") in MyLegalWhiz (https://web.mylegalwhiz.com) or by using or continuing to use the MyLegalWhiz service(s), this agreement is valid and in effect. Usage of Service includes all content and functionality available through the MyLegalWhiz website.

The Subscriber agrees to provide MyLegalWhiz with accurate email address and contact information. MyLegalWhiz shall not share, rent, sell, or trade Subscriber information. The Subscriber shall be entirely responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of their passwords and account data.

The Subscriber is entirely responsible for any and all activities that occur within the Subscriber's account. MyLegalWhiz shall not be held accountable or liable for any correction, deletion, loss, destruction, or failure to store any data or information owned or submitted by Subscriber.

The Subscriber, and employees or agents, will not use the MyLegalWhiz Service in any way to transmit through the Service any unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, obscene or otherwise objectionable material of any kind. The Subscriber agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold MyLegalWhiz harmless against any claim or action, civil or criminal that arises from the Subscribers use of the Service in any manner.

Subscriber acknowledges, and agrees, that the MyLegalWhiz service uses proprietary software owned by MyLegalWhiz, and the Subscriber is being granted an individual, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use the software subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement.

The Subscriber acknowledges, and agrees, that MyLegalWhiz retains exclusive ownership throughout the world of its software, including portions or copies, and all rights not expressly granted to the Subscriber are reserved by MyLegalWhiz.

MyLegalWhiz shall have a royalty-free, worldwide, transferable, sub-licenseable, irrevocable, perpetual license to use or incorporate into the Services any suggestions, enhancement requests, recommendations or other feedback provided by Subscriber relating to the operation of the Services.

• What is the difference between legal separation and annulment?
• Am I entitled to support if I have a child with a man not my husband?
• Am I obligated to give separation pay if an employee resigns?
• Please summarize the case of Estrada vs. Escritor.
• Can you draft a deed of absolute sale of a motor vehicle?
• Can you provide a framework for a company car plan policy?
• Am I required to provide transportation allowance to my employees?
• What is the tax implication of donations?
• What are the rules in requiring an employee to sign a non-compete clause?
• What are the applicable government circulars/laws in the reclassification of untitled agri lands to be used as a road?
• What is the tax implication of converting a common to preferred share in a company?
• Requesting a draft of a Petition for Correction of Gender.
• Petition for Approval of Sale or Disposition under Sec. 50 of PD 1529.