CAEDO v YU KHE THAI & BERNARDO

Makalintal, J.
G.R. No. L-20392. – December 18, 1968.
FACTS:
 Vehicles Involved
 Vehicle 1: Marcial Caedo was driving his Mercury car on his way to the airport with his son Ephraim, Mrs.
Caedo, and three daughters
 Vehicle 2: Coming from the opposite direction was the Cadillac of Yu Khe Thai, being driven by his chauffeur,
Rafael Bernardo
 Vehicle 3: Ahead of the Cadillac, going in the same direction, was a carretela towing another horse
 March 24, 1958: A vehicular mishap occurred along EDSA
 The Mercury was being driven on its own lane from the opposite direction
 The Cadillac was behind a carretela
 Bernardo testified that he was almost upon the rig when he was able to see the carretela in front of
him, only 8m away
 Instead of slowing down or stopping behind the carretela, Bernardo veered to the left in order to pass
 Caedo, upon seeing the Cadillac on its lane, slackened his speed
 Caedo judged the distances in relation to the carretela, and concluded that the Cadillac would wait
behind instead of attempting to overtake it
 Deciding to take a gamble, Bernardo swerved left in an attempt to beat the Mercury to the point where it
would be in line with the carretela
 As he did so, the curved end of the Cadillac's right rear bumper caught the forward rim of the rig's
left wheel
 He ended up wrenching it off and carrying it along as the Cadillac skidded obliquely to the other lane
 The Cadillac thus collided with the oncoming vehicle, the Mercury, even after Caedo attempted to
avoid the collision by going farther to the right
 Marcial Caedo sued Yu Khe Thai and Bernardo for recovery of damages
 Feb. 26, 1960: CFI of Rizal ruled in favor of Caedo
 Both parties appealed to the CA
 CA certified the case to the SC in view of the amount of Caedo’s claim
ISSUE/HELD/RATIO:
1. W/N Yu Khe Thai is solidarily liable for damages due to the negligence of Bernardo – NO
 The collision was directly traceable to Bernardo's negligence
 Art. 2184 is the applicable law to determine Yu Khe Thai's liability
 Under this provision, if the causative factor was the driver's negligence, the owner of the vehicle who was
present is likewise held liable if he could have prevented the mishap by the exercise of due diligence
 The basis of the master's liability is the relationship of PATER FAMILIAS, not respondent superior
o The negligence of the servant, if known to the master and susceptible of correction by him, reflects
HIS OWN negligence if he fails to correct it in order to prevent injury or damage
 In the case at bar, no negligence may be imputed against Yu Khe Thai
 The defense presented evidence to prove that there was NO NEGLIGENCE in Yu Khe Thai's EMPLOYMENT of
Bernardo
o No record of violation of traffic laws and regulations for the period of 10 years in which Bernardo
was employed as respondent’s driver
 However, the Court held that in Art. 2184 negligence must be sought in the IMMEDIATE SETTING AND
CIRCUMSTANCES of the accident, not with regard to employment. There must be failure to detain the driver
from pursuing a course which:
o Gave him clear notice of the danger
o Gave him sufficient time to act upon it
 Such negligence cannot be imputed to Yu Khe Thai, as:
o The car was not running at an unreasonable speed

1
 o Road was wide and open, devoid of traffic
o THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE CAR OWNER TO BE IN ANY SPECIAL STATE OF ALERT
o He reasonably relied on the skill and experience of Bernardo
 While it is true that Yu Khe Thai became aware of the presence of the carretela when his car was only 12m
behind it, his failure to see it earlier DID NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE, as he was not behind the wheel
 Even when he saw it at a distance, he could not have anticipated Bernardo's sudden decision to pass the
carretela on its left side in spite of the fact that the Mercury was approaching from the opposite direction
 In the case at bar, the time element was such that there was NO REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY for Yu Khe Thai to
assess the risks involved and warn the driver accordingly
 According to Yu Khe Thai, he decided that if he sounded a warning suddenly, it might only make Bernardo
nervous and aggravate the situation
 Wise or not, such decision does not connote the absence of due diligence required by law to prevent the
misfortune
 The imputed negligence under Art. 2184 is necessarily subjective
 Car owners are NOT held to a uniform and inflexible standard of diligence as are professional drivers
 Owners often refrain from driving their own cars and hire other persons to drive for them PRECISELY
because they are not endowed with sufficient discernment to know the rules of traffic/appreciate
the dangers posed on the road
 A negligent omission under Art. 2184 on the part of the owner, who is in the prime of age and
knows how to drive, will NOT necessarily be a negligent omission if it was done by an old and infirm
person, who is not similarly equipped
 The law DOES NOT require that a person possess a certain measure of skill either in the mechanics of driving
or in the observance of traffic rules before one can own a vehicle
 Test of Negligence in 2184: W/N his omission to do is that which the evidence of his own senses tell him he
should do in order to avoid the accident
 Absent a minimum level imposed by law, a maneuver that appears to be fraught with danger to one
passenger may appear to be entirely safe and commonplace to another
 Were the law to require a uniform standard of perceptiveness, employment of professional drivers by
car owners who have real need of such services due to their inadequacies, would be effectively
prescribed

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is modi ed in the sense of declaring defendant-appellant Yu Khe Thai free
from liability, and is otherwise a rmed with respect to defendant Rafael Bernardo, with costs against the latter.