Castilex Ind. Corp. v. Vasquez (1999) Davide,JR.,C.J. Facts: 1.

Aug 28, 88 2am collision at Fuente Osmea Rotunda, bet motorcycle and Toyota pick-up. a. Honda Motorcycle:driven by-Romeo Vasquez. Son of Res. He was traveling counter-clockwise the normal flow of traffic in the rotunda, but was however not wearing a protective helmet and only carrying a student permit. He died because of the collision. b. Toyota Pick-up owned by pet Castillex1 and driven by Benjamin Abad their managerial employee. Abad did overtime that day but after he went out to Goldies Restaurant to some snacks and had a chat with friends. As he was leaving the restaurant he took a shortcut against the flow of the traffic (clockwise on the rotunda) & in doing so he collided with the motorcycle. 2. Sept. 5, 88 Vasquez died at the Cebu Doctors Hospital. There Abad had signed an Acknowledgement of Responsible party for whatever bills Vasquezs confinement will entail. 3. Criminal Case was filed against Abad but this was dismissed due to failure to prosecute. 4. FILED: Action for damages by the Sps. Vasquez against Abad and Castillex. 5. TC: In favor of respondents. Abad and Castillex jointly and solidarily liable. CA: Affirmed BUT held that CAstillex liability is only vicarious and not solidary2. Issue: w/n Castillex is liable with Abad for his tortuous act? Decision: Castillex is NOT liable with Abad since at the time he was not acting within the scope of the functions entrusted to him. 1. Distinction:
4th par Owners and managers Covers negligent acts or employees committed either in the service of the branches or on occasion of their functions 5th par Employers, in general, WON engaged in a business or industry Encompasses negligent acts of employees as long as they were acting within the scope of their assigned tasks (MORE GENERAL)

2. SC has before applied the 5th paragraph to cases where employers were engaged in business or industry such as truck operators3 and banks4. CA therefore cannot be faulted for doing the same. 3. Vasquezs in wanting to make Castillex liable with its employee Abad alleges that Abad was acting within his scope as manager of Castillex. (as implied from the fact of including Castillex in their complaint) Castillex is not obliged to prove that Abad was not acting within his duties, it was with the Vasquezs as they were the one alleging it to prove that Abad was acting within his duties. He who asserts must prove. 4. No hard and fast rule to determine when an employee is acting for employee in driving a vehicle. SC disagrees with lower courts, Abad was not acting within

1 2

Castillex sold furniture. Hence relevance to 2180 par4 owners and managers of an establishment. CA applied art.2180(5) Castillex appealing contending that art.2180(4) should have been applied. 3 Lanuzo v. Ping, 100 SCRA 205, 209-210 [1980]; Layugan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 167 SCRA 363, 377 [1988]. 4 Pacific Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 173 SCRA 102, 117 [1989]; Go v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 197 SCRA 22, 31 [1991].

the scope of his duties. Mere fact of him using as service the company vehicle is not of itself sufficient to charge Pet. with liability. 5. AmJur principles re: liabilitiy for injuries inflicted by the negligence of employee in the use of employers motor vehicle: a. Going to and GN: ER not liable. EXC:Benefit for ER devote more From Meals time to work. b. Going to and From GN:ER not liable. EXC:Benefit for ER, not late, Work special errand, roving commission. b. Use of Co vehicle Oustide Work Hrs. GN:ER not liable, even when vehicle regularly assigned to EE.

6. HERE: Abad was engaged in the affairs of his own not in line with his duties. a. It was 2am way beyond normal working hours. b. His overtime work was already completed. c. The place was, as put by petitioner, a haven for prostitutes,pimps, and drug pushers, and addicts. d. Witness:Sidewalk vendore. Goldies was a lively place even late at dawn, people drink there. Also Abad was with a woman in his car who shouted Daddy! Daddy! which could not have been his daughter considering he was only 29yo. WHEREFORE GRANTED. Castillex ABSOLVED from liability. -Czarina Dee