G.R. No. 175512 ; May 30, 2011
VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC., Petitioner, vs. JOCELYN CATUBIG, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Vallacar Transit, Inc. is a transportation company and the franchise owner of a Ceres Bulilit bus driven by its regular employee, Quirino C. Cabanilla. On January 27, 1994, respondent Jocelyn Catubig’s husband, Quintin Catubig, Jr., was driving a motorcycle with his employee, Teddy Emperado, as a back rider. While approaching a curve, Catubig attempted to overtake a slow-moving cargo truck by crossing into the opposite lane, which was being traversed by Cabanilla’s bus heading in the opposite direction. The bus and motorcycle collided, resulting in the instantaneous deaths of both Catubig and Emperado. Cabanilla was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in double homicide, but the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) dismissed the criminal charge, finding no negligence, not even contributory, on Cabanilla’s part. Subsequently, respondent filed a civil complaint for damages against petitioner based on Article 2180, in relation to Article 2176, of the Civil Code, alleging that Cabanilla was reckless and negligent. Petitioner contended that the sole proximate cause of the accident was Catubig’s negligence in imprudently overtaking at a curve and argued for dismissal due to lack of verification and failure to state a cause of action, as there was no allegation of petitioner’s negligence in the selection or supervision of its driver. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, but the Court of Appeals reversed and granted respondent’s claim for damages.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Vallacar Transit, Inc. is civilly liable for damages arising from the death of Quintin Catubig, Jr., based on the negligence of its employee driver, Quirino C. Cabanilla, under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals, holding petitioner civilly liable. The Court ruled that while the MCTC’s dismissal of the criminal case established Cabanilla’s lack of criminal negligence, it did not preclude a finding of civil liability based on quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. The acquittal in the criminal case was not a determination of freedom from civil liability. Based on the evidence, the Court found that Cabanilla was negligent in driving the bus at an excessive speed (approximately 100 kilometers per hour) while approaching a curve, which contributed to the collision. This negligence was a proximate cause of the accident, alongside Catubig’s own negligence in overtaking at a curve. The principle of contributory negligence applies, but it does not bar recovery; it merely mitigates damages. Petitioner, as employer, is solidarily liable for the damages caused by its employee’s negligent act under Article 2180, as it failed to prove that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employee. The Court awarded temperate damages, actual damages (for burial expenses), moral damages, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit, with legal interest, to respondent.