G.R. No. 223178 , December 09, 2020
VICENTE T. GUERRERO, PETITIONER, VS. PHIL. PHOENIX SURETY & INSURANCE, INC., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

On December 31, 2008, a vehicular accident occurred in Zarraga, Iloilo, between an Isuzu Sportivo owned by Atty. Joseph Agustin Gaticales and a Chevrolet pick-up truck owned by petitioner Vicente T. Guerrero, driven by his employee Rogelio Cordero. The police investigation, as recorded in the police blotter and certified by the Chief of Police, found that Guerrero’s Chevrolet “overlapped to the center line which resulted [in] the accident,” encroaching into the lane of the Isuzu, and that Cordero fled the scene. Gaticales filed an own damage claim with his insurer, respondent Phil. Phoenix Surety & Insurance, Inc. (Phoenix), which paid him P810,000.00. Gaticales then executed a Release of Claim subrogating Phoenix to his rights. After selling the damaged Isuzu at auction for P399,050.00, Phoenix filed a complaint for damages against Guerrero and Cordero, seeking to recover the net loss of P425,100.00, reimbursement for Gaticales’ participation fee, attorney’s fees, and costs. Phoenix alleged Guerrero was vicariously liable as Cordero’s employer. Guerrero denied liability, asserting he exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees, that Cordero used the vehicle without authorization due to heavy rain, and that Gaticales was driving fast with high-beam headlights, causing Cordero to become disoriented and flee. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Phoenix, holding Guerrero and Cordero solidarily liable. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s decision which held petitioner Vicente T. Guerrero solidarily liable for damages based on the police blotter certification as proof of the driver’s negligence.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed CA Decision and Resolution. The police blotter certification, being an entry in an official record made by a public officer in the performance of his duty, is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein under Section 46, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. The certification clearly stated the factual findings of the police investigation: the Chevrolet overlapped the center line, causing the collision, and its driver fled. This prima facie evidence of Cordero’s negligence was not sufficiently rebutted by Guerrero. Guerrero’s defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees (presenting company memoranda on vehicle use policy and Cordero’s suspension) was irrelevant to negating the specific fact of negligence in the operation of the vehicle at the time of the accident, which was established by the police certification. Guerrero’s alternative narrative of Gaticales’ alleged negligence was unsubstantiated. Consequently, the presumption of negligence on the part of the employee (Cordero) stood, and pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the employer (Guerrero) was solidarily liable for the resulting damages. The Court also upheld the award of P9,180.00 as reimbursement for Gaticales’ participation fee, as it was a recoverable loss under the insurance policy for which Phoenix was subrogated.