GR 20392; (December, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20392 December 18, 1968
MARCIAL T. CAEDO, JUANA SANGALANG CAEDO, and the Minors, EPHRAIM CAEDO, EILEEN CAEDO, ROSE ELAINE CAEDO, suing through their father, MARCIAL T. CAEDO, as guardian ad litem, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. YU KHE THAI and RAFAEL BERNARDO, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
Plaintiffs Marcial Caedo and his family were injured in a vehicular accident. They filed a suit for damages against defendants Yu Khe Thai (owner) and Rafael Bernardo (driver). The trial court found defendants jointly and severally liable, awarding actual, moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Both parties appealed. The accident occurred at about 5:30 a.m. on March 24, 1958, on Highway 54. Marcial Caedo was driving his Mercury car with family members. Defendant Rafael Bernardo was driving Yu Khe Thai’s Cadillac in the opposite direction. Ahead of the Cadillac was a carretela. Bernardo, upon seeing the carretela only eight meters away, veered to the left to pass it, despite the oncoming Mercury. The Cadillac’s bumper caught the carretela’s wheel, causing the Cadillac to skid into the opposite lane and collide with the Mercury, whose right wheels were on the road’s shoulder at impact.
ISSUE
1. Who was responsible for the accident?
2. If it was defendant Rafael Bernardo, was his employer, defendant Yu Khe Thai, solidarily liable with him?
RULING
1. The collision was directly traceable to the negligence of defendant Rafael Bernardo. He was negligent in failing to see the carretella from a distance despite its lights, in attempting to pass it despite the oncoming car, and in giving insufficient clearance.
2. Defendant Yu Khe Thai, the vehicle owner who was present in the car, is NOT solidarily liable with the driver. Under Article 2184 of the Civil Code, the owner is solidarily liable if he could have, by the use of due diligence, prevented the misfortune. The Court found no such negligence on Yu Khe Thai’s part. He had employed Bernardo for a long time with no record of violations. The car was not speeding, the road was clear, and Yu Khe Thai had reason to rely on his driver’s skill. The decision to pass the carretela was sudden, and there was no reasonable opportunity for Yu Khe Thai to assess the risk and warn the driver. The test of imputed negligence under Article 2184 is subjective and depends on the owner’s capacity to perceive danger and act to prevent it. The award of moral damages to the plaintiffs was not excessive considering the nature and extent of their injuries. The judgment was modified to absolve Yu Khe Thai from liability and was otherwise affirmed against Rafael Bernardo.