GR 149149; (October, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149149 ; October 23, 2003
ERNESTO SYKI, petitioner, vs. SALVADOR BEGASA, respondent.
FACTS
On June 22, 1992, respondent Salvador Begasa was boarding a passenger jeepney when a truck, owned by petitioner Ernesto Syki and driven by Elizalde Sablayan, bumped the jeepney’s rear end. The impact caused Begasa to fall, resulting in a fractured femur and other injuries. Begasa filed a complaint for damages against the jeepney owner, Syki, and the truck driver.
The trial court dismissed the case against the jeepney owner but held Syki and his driver jointly and severally liable for actual and moral damages plus attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. Syki filed a petition for review, arguing that Begasa was contributorily negligent and that he, as employer, had exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in selecting and supervising his driver.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether respondent Begasa was contributorily negligent, warranting a reduction of damages; and (2) whether petitioner Syki successfully rebutted the presumption of negligence as an employer under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. On the first issue, it upheld the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts that no contributory negligence was attributable to Begasa. The sole and proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of Syki’s driver, who failed to slow down while approaching a busy intersection and recklessly bumped the stationary jeepney.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that Syki failed to overcome the legal presumption of negligence imposed on employers by Article 2180. This provision presumes an employer’s negligence in the selection or supervision of an employee whose act causes damage. To escape liability, the employer must prove with convincing evidence the exercise of due diligence. Syki’s evidence, which relied merely on general testimonial assertions without corroborating documentary proof like employment records or training documents, was insufficient to meet this burden. Consequently, Syki was correctly held vicariously liable for the damages caused by his employee’s negligence.