GR 146173; (December, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146173 ; December 11, 2003
CECILIA YAMBAO, petitioner, vs. MELCHORITA C. ZUÑIGA, LEOVIGILDO C. ZUÑIGA, REGINALDO C. ZUÑIGA, AND THE MINORS, HERMINIGILDO C. ZUÑIGA, JR., AND LOVELY EMILY C. ZUÑIGA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Cecilia Yambao is the registered owner of a passenger bus. On May 6, 1992, her bus, driven by Ceferino Venturina, struck and killed pedestrian Herminigildo Zuñiga along EDSA in Caloocan City. The victim’s heirs, the respondents, filed a complaint for damages against Yambao and Venturina, alleging reckless and negligent driving. Yambao, in her defense, claimed the victim himself bumped into the bus while avoiding a woman and asserted she exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in selecting and supervising her driver.
The trial court ruled in favor of the heirs, finding the driver negligent and holding Yambao liable. It dismissed Yambao’s defense as “incredible if not preposterous.” The Court of Appeals affirmed the liability but modified the legal basis, holding that the case involved a quasi-delict, not a breach of contract of carriage, since the victim was not a passenger.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether petitioner Cecilia Yambao is liable for damages arising from the quasi-delict committed by her employee, the bus driver.
RULING
Yes, the petitioner is liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. The Court clarified that the applicable law is Article 2176, in relation to Article 2180, of the Civil Code on quasi-delict, not the law on common carriers. The relationship between the bus owner and the deceased pedestrian was not contractual; thus, the presumptions of fault under the law on common carriers do not apply. For employer liability under Article 2180 to attach, the employee’s negligent act causing damage must be established.
Here, both lower courts consistently found the driver, Venturina, negligent based on the evidence. Given this finding of negligence, the employer, Yambao, is primarily and solidarily liable for the resulting damages under Article 2180. This liability attaches unless the employer proves observance of the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of employees. The Court upheld the appellate court’s finding that Yambao failed to substantiate this defense with sufficient evidence. Consequently, she is correctly held liable for indemnity, actual, moral, and exemplary damages, and other costs awarded to the heirs of the victim.