Mercury Drug v.

Huang
G.R. No. 172122 – June 22, 2007
C.J. Puno

Topic: Rebuttal of presumption

Petitioners: Mercury Drug Corporation and Rolando J. Del Rosario
Respondents: Spouses Richard Huang and Carmen Huang, and Stephen Huang

Summary: Stephen Huang and Rolando Del Rosario (driver of Mercury Drug truck) got into an accident
in C-5, leaving Huang paralyzed from the chest down. Rolando was found liable for the accident and the
injuries sustained by Huang. MD as employer was also found negligent – the corporation failed to rebut
the evidences presented against them.

FACTS:
 December 20, 1996: A Mercury Drug (MD) six-wheeler truck driven by Rolando Del Rosario and
a Toyota Corolla driven by Stephen Huang were both on C-5 highway, northbound, coming from
the general direction of Alabang going to Pasig City
o The car was on the left innermost lane, while the truck was on the next lane to its right
o The truck suddenly swerved to its left and slammed into the front right side of the car 
the collision hurled the car over the island where it hit a lamppost, spun around and landed
on the opposite lane
 The truck also hit a lamppost, ran over the car and zigzagged until it stopped in
front of Buellah Land Church
o At the time of the accident, the truck driver had a Traffic Violation Receipt and his driver’s
license had been confiscated because of reckless driving
o The car was a total wreck and Stephen Huang sustained massive injuries which paralyzed
for life from his chest down and requires that he have continuous medical and rehabilitation
treatment
 The Huangs blame the truck driver for committing gross negligence and reckless imprudence, while
the petitioners allege that the immediate and proximate cause of the accident was Huang’s
recklessness
o According to MD, truck driver was on the left innermost lane when the car bumped the
truck’s front right tire  the truck then swerved left, smashed into an electric post, crossed
the center island, and stopped on the other side of the highway. The car then crossed over
to the center island and landed on the same portion of C-5 (HUWAHT HAHA)
 RTC: MD and Del Rosario Jointly and Severally liable
 CA: Affirmed the LC’s decision
o MD failed to exercise the diligence required in supervising employees
o Del Rosario negligent in driving the truck at the time of accident

ISSUES + HELD:
1. W/N Del Rosario liable – YES
 The SC affirmed the findings of the CA
 The evidence does not support petitioners’ claim that at the time of the accident, the truck was on
the left inner lane and that it was Huang’s car which bumped the right front side of the truck
o Firstly, Del Rosario could not precisely tell which part of the truck was hit by the car (even
though the truck was snub-nosed and a lot higher than the car)
o Del Rosario also couldn’t explain why the car landed on the opposite lane of -5 which was
on its left side. He said, “the car did not pass in front of him after it hit him or under him
or over him or behind him” (HUH?!)
  If the truck were really at the left lane and the car were at its right, and the car hit
the truck at its front right side, the car would not have landed on the opposite side,
but would have been thrown to the right side of the C-5 highway
o Noteworthy is the testimony of Dr. Daza, an expert in the field of physics. He conducted a
study based on the ff. assumptions provided by respondents:
 Two vehicles collided;
 One vehicle is ten times heavier, more massive than the other;
 Both vehicles were moving in the same direction and at the same speed of about
85-90 kph
 The heavier vehicle was driving at the innermost left lane, while the lighter vehicle
was at its right
o Dr. Daza testified that given the assumptions, if the lighter vehicle hits the right front
portion of the heavier vehicle, the general direction of the light vehicle after the impact
would be to the right side of the heavy vehicle, not the other way around
 The truck is more difficult to move as it is heavier. It is the car, the lighter vehicle,
which would move to the right of, and away from the truck
 Very little chance that the car will move towards the opposite side, i.e., to the left
of the truck
 He concluded that the general direction of the car after impact would be to the left
of the truck – the middle island against which the car was pinned would slow down
the car, and enable the truck to catch up and hit the car again, before running over
it
 To support their thesis, the petitioners tried to show damages that the truck sustained at its right
side, however the evidence did not impress
o The photos were taken a month after the accident, and an employee who repaired the truck
admitted that there were also damages on the left side
o Worse, Del Rosario admitted that after the impact, he lost control of the truck and failed to
apply his brakes  the impact allegedly caused by the car when it hit the truck could not
be so great to cause petitioner to lose all control that he failed to even step on the brakes!!!
 The evidence proves Del Rosario’s negligence as the direct and proximate cause

2. W/N MD liable – YES

 Liable under Art. 2180
o To be relieved of liability, MD should show that it exercised the diligence of a good father
of a family, both in the selection of the employee and in the supervision of the performance
of his duties
o As the employer, it was required that they examine the employees as to their qualifications,
experience and service records. With respect to supervision, the employers should
formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation, and impose
disciplinary measures for their breach
o To establish compliance with these requirements, employers must submit concrete
proof, including documentary evidence
 In the present case, MD presented testimonial evidence as to its hiring procedure. According to Ms.
Caamic of the recruitment office:
o Applicants are required to take theoretical and actual driving tests, and a psychological
examination
 It was discovered that Del Rosario took those tests when he applied for the position
of Delivery Man, but not when he applied for the position of truck driver  when
he was just the delivery man, he only drove a Galant (sedan)
  No further tests were conducted on his motor skills development, perceptual speed,
visual attention, depth visualization, hand eye coordination and steadiness
 In addition, No NBI and police clearances were presented
 Lastly, Del Rosario attended only three driving seminars – July 1984, February
2000 and June 2001 (ACCIDENT WAS DECEMBER 1996 – HE ONLY
ATTENDED ONE SEMINAR BEFORE THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN
1996)
o It also appears that MD does not provide for a back-up driver for long trips. At the time of
the accident, Del Rosario has been out on the road for more than 13 hours, without any
alternate
 MD likewise failed to show that it exercised due diligence on the supervision and discipline over
their employees
o On the day of the accident, Del Rosario was driving without a license  only holding a
TVR for reckless driving
o Del Rosario testified that he reported the incident to his superior, but nothing was done
about it  he was not even suspended or reprimanded
 Mercury Drug failed to discharge its burden of proving that it exercised due diligence in the
selection and supervision of its employee, petitioner Del Rosario

RULING: “IN VIEW THEREOF, the petition is DENIED…”