G.R. No. 155111 ; February 14, 2008
CORNELIO LAMPESA and DARIO COPSIYAT, petitioners, vs. DR. JUAN DE VERA, JR., FELIX RAMOS and MODESTO TOLLAS, respondents.

FACTS

On December 28, 1988, respondent Dr. Juan De Vera, Jr. was a passenger in a jeepney driven by Modesto Tollas. The jeepney stopped to allow a truck driven by petitioner Dario Copsiyat to cross the highway to park. As the jeepney began to move slowly forward, the truck, which had just left the pavement, suddenly slid backward. Its rear portion struck the jeepney, causing De Vera, who was holding onto a handle, to have his left middle finger amputated. De Vera filed an action for damages against the truck driver Copsiyat, the truck owner Cornelio Lampesa, and the jeepney operator and driver.
The defense presented a contrary version, alleging the jeepney sideswiped the stationary truck. The trial court found Copsiyat negligent in operating the truck, which was the proximate cause of the injury, and held Lampesa liable for failing to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of his driver. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the finding of negligence against petitioners and their liability for damages; and (2) Whether the awards for moral damages and attorney’s fees were justified.

RULING

The petition lacks merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ findings. On the first issue, the determination of negligence is a question of fact. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals consistently found that Copsiyat was negligent in maneuvering the truck, which directly caused the accident and De Vera’s injury. This factual finding is binding on the Supreme Court in a petition for review limited to questions of law. Furthermore, under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, an employer is presumptively liable for the damages caused by an employee’s negligent act. Lampesa failed to rebut this presumption by proving he exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in selecting and supervising Copsiyat. His mere inquiry about a driver’s license was insufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence in supervision.
On the second issue, the awards for moral damages and attorney’s fees were proper. Moral damages are recoverable in quasi-delicts causing physical injuries under Article 2219 of the Civil Code. The amputation of a finger constitutes a physical injury that naturally results in physical suffering, mental anguish, and anxiety, justifying the award. Attorney’s fees were also correctly awarded under Article 2208(2), as the defendant’s act compelled the plaintiff to incur litigation expenses to protect his interest. The petitioners’ liability is solidary.