8. MMTC v.

CA
G.R. No. 104408 | Regalado, J. | 21 June 1993
Sources of Obligation (Culpa Contractual/Culpa Aquiliana)

DOCTRINE: Elements of quasi-delicts are as follows: (1) damages suffered by the plaintiff, (2) fault or
negligence of the defendant or some other person for whose act he must respond, and (3) the connection of
cause and effect between fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by plaintiff.

FACTS:
Plaintiff-appellant Nenita Custodio boarded as a paying passenger a public utility jeepney, then driven by
defendant Agudo Calebag and owned by his co-defendant Victorino Lamayo, bound for her work at Dynetics
Incorporated located in Bicutan, Taguig, where she then worked as a machine operator earning P16.25 a
day. While the passenger jeepney was travelling at (a) fast clip along DBP Avenue, Bicutan, Taguig, another
fast moving vehicle, a Metro Manila Transit Corp. (MMTC, for short) bus driven by defendant Godofredo C.
Leonardo was negotiating Honeydew Road, Bicutan, Taguig. As both vehicles approached the intersection
of DBP Avenue and Honeydew Road they failed to slow down and slacken their speed; neither did they blow
their horns to warn approaching vehicles. As a consequence, a collision between them occurred, the
passenger jeepney ramming the left side portion of the MMTC bus. The collision impact caused plaintiff-
appellant Nenita Custodio to hit the front windshield of the passenger jeepney and (she) was thrown out
therefrom, falling onto the pavement unconscious with serious physical injuries. She was brought to the
Medical City Hospital where she regained consciousness only after one (1) week. Thereat, she was confined
for twenty-four (24) days, and as a consequence, she was unable to work for three and one-half months
(31/2).

A complaint for damages was filed by Custodio against all of therein named defendants following their refusal
to pay the expenses incurred by the former as a result of the collision. The reorganized trial court found both
drivers of the colliding vehicles concurrently negligent for non-observance of appropriate traffic rules and
regulations and for failure to take the usual precautions when approaching an intersection,, while defendant
MMTC was absolved from liability for the accident on the ground that it was strict and diligent in choosing,
supervising, briefing, and checking its employees.

Custodio, then, filed an appeal. After consideration, the Court of Appeals modified the trial court's decision
by holding MMTC solidarily liable with the other defendants for the damages awarded by the trial court
because of their concurrent negligence, thus prompting MMTC to file the instant petition invoking the review
powers of this Court over the decision of the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:
Whether or not MMTC is liable for torts committed by its driver Leonardo while performing his assigned tasks.

HELD:
Yes, the case at bar is clearly within the coverage of Article 2176 and 2177, in relation to Article 2180, of the
Civil Code provisions on quasi-delicts as all the elements thereof are present, to wit: (1) damages suffered
by the plaintiff, (2) fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person for whose act he must respond,
and (3) the connection of cause and effect between fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages
incurred by plaintiff. It is to be noted that petitioner was originally sued as employer of driver Leonardo under
Article 2180, the pertinent parts of which provides that:

The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for
those of persons for whom one is responsible.

xxx xxx xxx

Employers shall be liable for damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the
scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.

xxx xxx xxx

 The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they
observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.

The basis of the employer's vicarious liability has been explained under this ratiocination:

The responsibility imposed by this article arises by virtue of a presumption juris tantum of negligence on the
part of the persons made responsible under the article, derived from their failure to exercise due care and
vigilance over the acts of subordinates to prevent them from causing damage. Negligence is imputed to them
by law, unless they prove the contrary. Thus, the last paragraph of the article says that such responsibility
ceases if is proved that the persons who might be held responsible under it exercised the diligence of a good
father of a family (diligentissimi patris familias) to prevent damage. It is clear, therefore, that it is not
representation, nor interest, nor even the necessity of having somebody else answer for the damages caused
by the persons devoid of personality, but it is the non-performance of certain duties of precaution and prudence
imposed upon the persons who become responsible by civil bond uniting the actor to them, which forms the
foundation of such responsibility.

With the allegation and subsequent proof of negligence against the defendant driver and of an employer-
employee relation between him and his co-defendant MMTC in this instance, the case in undoubtedly based
on a quasi-delict under Article 2180. When the employee causes damage due to his own negligence while
performing his own duties, there arises the juris tantum presumption that the employer is negligent, rebuttable
only by proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a family. For failure to rebut such legal
presumption of negligence in the selection and supervision of employees, the employer is likewise
responsible for damages, the basis of the liability being the relationship of pater familias or on the employer's
own negligence. As early as the case of Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez, and thereafter, we have consistently held
that where the injury is due to the concurrent negligence of the drivers of the colliding vehicles, the drivers
and owners of the said vehicles shall be primarily, directly and solidarily liable for damages and it is immaterial
that one action is based on quasi-delict and the other on culpa contractual, as the solidarily of the obligation
is justified by the very nature thereof.

WHEREFORE, the impugned decision of respondent Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED.