G.R. No. 104408 June 21, 1993
METRO MANILA TRANSIT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND NENITA CUSTODIA, respondents.

FACTS

On August 28, 1979, Nenita Custodio, a minor assisted by her parents, was a paying passenger in a jeepney owned by Victorino Lamayo and driven by Agudo Calebag. While traveling along DBP Avenue in Bicutan, Taguig, the jeepney collided at an intersection with a bus owned by the Metro Manila Transit Corporation (MMTC) and driven by Godofredo Leonardo. Both vehicles were moving fast and failed to slow down, slacken speed, or blow their horns when approaching the intersection. The collision caused Custodio to be thrown from the jeepney, rendering her unconscious and resulting in serious physical injuries, hospitalization for 24 days, and an inability to work for three and a half months. Custodio filed a complaint for damages against Calebag, Lamayo, Leonardo, and MMTC. The defendants denied liability and blamed each other. MMTC specifically asserted that its bus was driven prudently, that the jeepney was reckless, and that Lamayo failed to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of his employee. Lamayo, in turn, alleged that MMTC and its driver were solely negligent and that MMTC failed to exercise due diligence. The trial court found both drivers concurrently negligent for failing to observe traffic rules and precautions at an intersection. It held the drivers and Lamayo solidarily liable but absolved MMTC from liability, finding it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its driver based on testimonies from its training officer and transport supervisor regarding screening, training, and monitoring procedures. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court on this point, finding MMTC solidarily liable and holding that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove MMTC exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its driver.

ISSUE

Whether the evidence presented by petitioner MMTC is sufficient to prove it exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employee, driver Godofredo Leonardo, to exempt it from liability for the quasi-delict.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding MMTC solidarily liable. The Court ruled that the evidence presented by MMTC, consisting solely of the testimonies of its training officer and transport supervisor describing general company procedures for selection and supervision, was insufficient to overcome the legal presumption of negligence on the part of the employer. The Court emphasized that the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees must be substantiated by convincing proof, and such diligence must be exercised both before and during the employee’s service. MMTC failed to present any documentary evidence (such as Leonardo’s driver’s license, clearances, test results, employment records, or proof of actual supervision) to corroborate the testimonies and prove that these rigorous procedures were actually applied to driver Leonardo specifically. The general statements about company policy, without proof of application to the particular employee, did not constitute the requisite proof of due diligence. Since both drivers were found concurrently negligent, their employers (MMTC and Lamayo) were held solidarily liable for the damages under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.