G.R. No. L-9734; March 31, 1915
JUAN BAHIA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FAUSTA LITONJUA, defendant-appellee, and MARIANO LEYNES, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Juan Bahia filed an action to recover damages for the death of his daughter, who was killed when an automobile struck her in Balayan, Batangas. The automobile was owned by Fausta Litonjua but had been turned over to her son, Ramon Ramirez, for use in his business, the International Garage. On May 14, 1911, Ramirez rented the automobile, along with a chauffeur and a machinist, to Mariano Leynes for P20 per day, to transport passengers between Balayan and Tuy during a fiesta. On May 16, 1911, due to a defect in the steering gear, the automobile failed to negotiate a turn, veered across the street, and hit the child, who was leaning against a house wall, causing her death. Bahia sued both Litonjua and Leynes. The trial court dismissed the case against Litonjua but held Leynes liable for P1,000. Both Bahia and Leynes appealed.

ISSUE:
1. Whether Fausta Litonjua, as the owner of the automobile, is liable for the damages resulting from the accident.
2. Whether Mariano Leynes, as the lessee who had control and direction of the automobile at the time of the accident, is liable for the negligence of the chauffeur or for the defect in the vehicle.

RULING:
1. As to Fausta Litonjua: The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against her. Although she owned the automobile, she had turned it over to her son’s garage, and Ramirez had full management and control of the vehicle. The contract with Leynes was made by Ramirez without Litonjua’s knowledge or consent. Mere ownership did not make her responsible for the accident under the circumstances.

2. As to Mariano Leynes: The Supreme Court reversed the judgment against him and dismissed the complaint. Under Article 1903 of the Civil Code, liability for negligence of a servant or employee arises only if the master or employer fails to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in selection and supervision. The accident was caused by a latent defect in the steering gear. Leynes successfully rebutted the presumption of negligence by proving he exercised due diligence: he rented the automobile from a reputable garage, the vehicle appeared in good condition, the chauffeur and machinist were licensed and competent, and he had no actual or constructive knowledge of the defect. Since the accident resulted from a hidden mechanical failure, not from lack of supervision or rules, Leynes was not liable.

The Court distinguished the Spanish law principle (presumption of negligence that can be rebutted) from the American doctrine (vicarious liability where the master is conclusively liable for the servant’s negligence). Here, Leynes proved he acted with the care of a good father of a family, thus relieving him of liability.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment dismissing the complaint against Fausta Litonjua is affirmed, with costs. The judgment against Mariano Leynes is reversed, and the complaint against him is dismissed, without special finding as to costs in this instance.