GR 199282; (March, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 199282 . March 14, 2016.
TRAVEL & TOURS ADVISERS, INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, VS. ALBERTO CRUZ, SR., EDGAR HERNANDEZ AND VIRGINIA MUÑOZ, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
On January 9, 1998, around 7:50 p.m., respondent Edgar Hernandez was driving his Isuzu passenger jeepney along Angeles-Magalang Road in Pampanga. A Daewoo passenger bus owned by petitioner Travel and Tours Advisers, Inc. and driven by Edgar Calaycay, travelling in the same direction, bumped the rear portion of the jeepney. This caused the jeepney to ram into an acacia tree, resulting in the death of passenger Alberto Cruz, Jr. and serious physical injuries to passenger Virginia Muñoz. Respondents Edgar Hernandez, Virginia Muñoz, and Alberto Cruz, Sr. (father of the deceased) filed a complaint for damages against the bus driver and the bus company. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found petitioner jointly and solidarily liable for damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modifications. Petitioner filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing, among other things, that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its driver, that the jeepney driver was negligent, and that the deceased was improperly positioned on the jeepney.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the finding that petitioner is jointly and solidarily liable for damages arising from the vehicular accident.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The issues raised by the petitioner are factual in nature and do not fall under any of the recognized exceptions that would allow the Supreme Court to review factual findings. The findings of the CA, which affirmed the RTC, are deemed conclusive. The CA correctly held that the registered owner of any vehicle, in this case the petitioner, is directly and primarily responsible for damages caused by the operation of the vehicle, consistent with the principle of respondeat superior. The defense of exercising due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees is unavailing in culpa contractual or quasi-delict cases involving common carriers, as they are bound to observe extraordinary diligence. The CA’s awards for actual damages, loss of earning capacity, civil indemnity, moral damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation costs were upheld as having sufficient basis.