GR 170631; (February, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170631 , February 10, 2016
CARAVAN TRAVEL AND TOURS INTERNATIONAL, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ERMILINDA R. ABEJAR, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
On July 13, 2000, Jesmariane Reyes was hit by a Mitsubishi L-300 van driven by Jimmy Bautista, an employee of Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc. Bautista failed to bring the injured Reyes to a hospital promptly. Reyes died two days later. The respondent, Ermilinda Abejar, Reyes’s paternal aunt who raised her, filed a complaint for damages against Bautista and Caravan. Bautista was dropped as a defendant after summons could not be served. The Regional Trial Court found Bautista grossly negligent and held Caravan solidarily liable as the registered owner and employer, awarding damages to Abejar. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications, reducing moral damages and adding death indemnity with interest.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether Abejar, as an aunt who raised the victim, had the legal personality to sue for damages; and (2) whether Caravan, as the registered owner and employer, could be held vicariously liable for the negligent act of its driver.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court ruled Abejar was a real party in interest. While not an heir in the strict succession sense, she qualified as an “heir” under the context of an action for damages arising from a quasi-delict. She raised the victim from childhood, exercised substitute parental authority, and incurred burial expenses, giving her a material and substantive interest in seeking redress. On the second issue, the Court harmonized Article 2180 of the Civil Code on employer liability with the registered-owner rule. Proof of Caravan’s ownership via the vehicle registration created a disputable presumption that the driver was employed by Caravan and was acting within the scope of his assigned tasks at the time of the accident. This presumption shifted the burden of evidence to Caravan to rebut, which it failed to do. Caravan’s defense that Bautista was not on a company mission was unsubstantiated. Furthermore, Caravan failed to prove it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employee. Thus, vicarious liability was correctly imposed. The awards for damages, as modified by the Court of Appeals, were sustained.