DUAVIT v COURT OF APPEALS

HELD:
GR No. 82318; May 18, 1989
NO
Parties:
In Duquillo v Bayot (1939), SC ruled that an
Plaintiffs Antonio Sarmiento, Sr. and Virgilio Catuar
owner of a vehicle cannot be held liable for an accident
(driver) – on board of jeepney owned by plaintiff
involving a vehicle if the same was driven without his
Ruperto Catuar
consent or knowledge and by a person not employed by
Defendant Oscar Sabiano – driver of the other jeep
him. This ruling is still relevant and applicable, and
owned by Defendant Gualverto Duavit
hence, must be upheld.
FACTS:
CA’s reliance on the cases of Erezo v Jepte and
The jeep being driven by defendant Oscar
Vargas v Langcay is misplaced and cannot be sustained.
Sabiniano collided with another jeep, which had then
In Erezo v Jepte case, defendant Jepte was held liable
2 passengers on it (plaintiffs Antonio Sarmiento, Sr. and
for the death of Erezo even if he was not really the
Virgilio Catuar). As a result of the collision the
owner of the truck that killed the latter because
passengers of the other jeep suffered injury and the
he represented himself as its owner to the
automobile itself had to be repaired because of the
Motor Vehicles Office and had it registered under his
extensive damage.
name; he was thus estopped from later on denying such
representation. In Vargas, Vargas sold her jeepney to a
A case was filed against Sabiniano as driver and
3rd person, but she did not surrender to the Motor
against Duavit as owner of the jeep. Duavit admitted
Vehicles Office the corresponding AC plates. So when
ownership of the jeep but denied that Sabiniano was his
the jeepney later on figured in an accident, she was
employee. Sabiniano himself admitted that he took
held liable by the court. Holding that the operator of
Duavit’s jeep from the garage without consent or
record continues to be the operator of vehicle in
authority of the owner. He testified further that Duavit
contemplation of law, as regards the public and 3rd
even filed charges against him for theft of the jeep, but
persons.
which Duavit did not push through as the parents
of Sabiniano apologized to Duavit on his behalf.
The circumstances of the above cases are entirely
different from those in the present case. Herein
Trial Court found Sabiniano negligent in driving
petitioner does not deny ownership of vehicle but
the vehicle but absolved Duavit on the ground that
denies having employed or authorized the
there was no employer-employee relationship between
driver Sabiniano. The jeep was virtually stolen from the
them, and that former took the vehicle without
petitioner’s garage. To hold, therefore, the petitioner
consent or authority of the latter. Duavit was, thus,
liable for the accident caused by the negligence of
absolved from liability under Article 2180 of the Civil
Sabiniano who was neither his driver nor employee
Code
would be absurd as it would be like holding liable the
owner of a stolen vehicle for an accident caused by the
CA held the two of them jointly and severally
person who stole such vehicle.
liable. It Applied Vargas vs Langcay ruling where it was
held that it was held that it is immaterial whether or not
Decision and resolution of CA annulled and set aside.
the driver was actually employed by the operator of
record or registered owner, and it is even not necessary
to prove who the actual owner of the vehicle and who
the employer of the driver is.

ISSUE:
Won the owner of a private vehicle which figured in an
accident can be held liable under Article2180 of the CC
when the said vehicle was neither driven by an
employee of the owner nor taken with the consent of
the latter.