DUAVIT v COURT OF APPEALS

173 SCRA 492

May 18, 1989
FACTS:
The jeep being driven by defendant Sabiniano collided with another jeep, which had then 2 assengers
on it. As a result of the collision the passengers of the other jeep suffered injury and the automobile
itself had to be repaired because of the extensive damage.
A case was filed against Sabiniano as driver and against Duavit as owner of the jeep.
Duavit admitted ownership of the jeep but denied that Sabiniano was his employee.
Sabiniano himself admitted that he took Duavits jeep from the garage without consent or authority of
the owner. He testified further that Duavit even filed charges against him for theft of the jeep, but
which Duavit did not push through as the parents of Sabiniano apologized to Duavit on his behalf.
The trial court found Sabiniano negligent in driving the vehicle but absolved Duavit on the ground
that there was no employer-employee relationship between them, and that former took the vehicle
without consent or authority of the latter.
The Court of Appeals held the two of them jointly and severally liable.
ISSUE: Won the owner of a private vehicle which figured in an accident can be held liable under
Article 2180 of the CC when the said vehicle was neither driven by an employee of the owner nor
taken with the consent of the latter.
RULING: NO
In Duquillo v Bayot (1939), SC ruled that an owner of a vehicle cannot be held liable for an accident
involving a vehicle if the same was driven without his consent or knowledge and by a person not
employed by him.
This ruling is still relevant and applicable, and hence, must be upheld.
CAs reliance on the cases of Erezo v Jepte and Vargas v Langcay is misplaced and cannot be
sustained.
In Erezo v Jepte case, defendant Jepte was held liable for the death of Erezo even if he was not
really the owner of the truck that killed the latter because he represented himself as its owner to the
Motor Vehicles Office and had it registered under his name; he was thus estopped from later on
denying such representation.
In Vargas, Vargas sold her jeepney to a 3rd person, but she did not surrender to the Motor Vehicles
Office the corresponding AC plates. So when the jeepney later on figured in an accident, she was
held liable by the court. holding that the operator of record continues to be the operator of vehicle in
contemplation of law, as regards the public and 3rd persons.
The circumstances of the above cases are entirely different from those in the present case. Herein
petitioner does not deny ownership of vehicle but denies having employed or authorized the driver
Sabiniano. The jeep was virtually stolen from the petitioners garage.