G.R. No. 211424, November 26, 2014
DAVAO HOLIDAY TRANSPORT SERVICES CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES EULOGIO and CARMELITA EMPHASIS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Davao Holiday Transport Services Corporation owned and operated Holiday Taxi No. 177, driven by its employee Orlando Tungal. On October 18, 2003, the taxi bumped and killed 12-year-old Christian Emphasis, who was riding a bicycle along Airport Road in Davao City. An information for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide was filed against Tungal. Separately, the victim’s parents, respondents Spouses Eulogio and Carmelita Emphasis, filed a civil action for damages against both Tungal and the petitioner. The criminal and civil cases were jointly tried by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 12.
On June 17, 2008, the RTC found Tungal guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and sentenced him accordingly. In the civil case, the RTC held petitioner and Tungal jointly and severally liable for damages, awarding civil indemnity, moral damages, actual damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and 12% interest per annum from the decision date. Petitioner appealed the civil liability to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing it exercised extraordinary diligence in the selection and supervision of its drivers, including Tungal.
The CA, in its Decision dated November 20, 2012, affirmed petitioner’s liability but modified the awards: civil indemnity to ₱50,000.00, moral damages to ₱200,000.00, actual damages to ₱365,696.02, exemplary damages to ₱150,000.00, attorney’s fees to ₱50,000.00, and litigation expenses to ₱33,455.00. It also ordered interest at 6% from the offense commission, then 12% from finality of judgment until full payment. The CA held that petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of negligence as an employer, as it presented only self-serving testimony without documentary evidence of Tungal’s qualifications, training, or supervision. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this Petition for Review.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner is liable for damages arising from the negligence of its employee, driver Orlando Tungal, despite its claim of having exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in his selection and supervision.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA’s findings with MODIFICATION on the interest rate. Petitioner is liable for damages under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code, which holds employers responsible for damages caused by employees acting within the scope of their tasks, unless they prove observance of the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. The Court upheld the CA’s ruling that petitioner failed to rebut the juris tantum presumption of negligence. Petitioner presented only self-serving testimony without concrete documentary proof of Tungal’s qualifications, experience, training, service records, or monitoring procedures. Thus, petitioner’s liability stands.
Regarding interest, the Court modified the CA’s imposition. The damages arose from a quasi-delict under Article 2176 in relation to Article 2180. Interest at 6% per annum shall be computed from June 17, 2008 (the date of the RTC decision quantifying the damages), not from the offense commission, until full satisfaction. The increase to 12% upon finality was rectified; pursuant to Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799, the judgment award is considered a forbearance of credit, warranting a uniform 6% interest per annum until full payment.