G.R. No. 118889 March 23, 1998
FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, FILCAR TRANSPORT, INC., and FORTUNE INSURANCE CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

On April 21, 1987, two Mitsubishi Colt Lancers figured in a traffic accident along EDSA in Mandaluyong City. One car was owned by Lydia F. Soriano and driven by Benjamin Jacildone. The other car was owned by respondent FILCAR Transport, Inc. (FILCAR) and driven by its lessee, Peter Dahl-Jensen, a Danish tourist who did not possess a Philippine driver’s license. The FILCAR car, driven by Dahl-Jensen, swerved to the right from the center lane, hitting the left side of Soriano’s car. Petitioner FGU Insurance Corporation, as Soriano’s insurer, paid her P25,382.20 and, by way of subrogation, sued Dahl-Jensen, FILCAR, and FILCAR’s insurer, respondent Fortune Insurance Corporation (FORTUNE), for quasi-delict. Dahl-Jensen could not be served summons and was dropped from the complaint. The trial court dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, ruling that while the fault or negligence of Dahl-Jensen was sufficiently proved, that of respondent FILCAR was not, thus petitioner failed to establish its cause of action based on quasi-delict.

ISSUE

May an action based on quasi-delict prosper against a rent-a-car company and its insurer for the fault or negligence of the car lessee in driving the rented vehicle?

RULING

No. The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. To sustain a claim based on quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff must prove: (a) damage suffered; (b) fault or negligence of the defendant; and (c) a causal connection between the fault and the damage. Petitioner failed to prove the fault or negligence of defendant FILCAR. The negligence was solely attributable to lessee Dahl-Jensen, making the damage his personal liability. FILCAR had no participation. Article 2180, which imposes liability for the acts of others, is not applicable because there was no employer-employee relationship between FILCAR (the car owner/lessor) and Dahl-Jensen (the lessee). Article 2184, which makes the owner solidarily liable with the driver in certain motor vehicle mishaps, is also inapplicable due to the absence of a master-driver relationship. The ruling in MYC-Agro-Industrial Corporation v. Vda. de Caldo is not controlling, as that case involved a lease contract found to be a disguise to avoid employer liability, a circumstance not present here. Consequently, petitioner has no cause of action against FILCAR on quasi-delict, and its claim against FORTUNE cannot prosper.