G.R. No. 243237 , February 17, 2020
HEIRS OF CATALINA P. MENDOZA, PETITIONERS, V. ES TRUCKING AND FORWARDERS, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

On June 13, 2013, Catalina P. Mendoza was sideswiped and killed by a 14-wheeler prime mover truck with an attached trailer while she was attempting to cross Sta. Maria Road in Zamboanga City. The vehicle was registered under ES Trucking and Forwarders and driven by its employee, Clin Timtim. Catalina’s sons brought her to the hospital where she was pronounced dead. The Heirs of Catalina sent a demand letter to ES Trucking for damages, which was refused. A criminal case for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide was filed against Timtim, wherein he was convicted and applied for probation. Separately, a civil complaint for quasi-delict against ES Trucking was filed. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the civil complaint, finding no evidence of negligence attributable to the driver. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, concluding the death was a mere accident and that the employer could defend itself by proving due diligence in selection and supervision, irrespective of the driver’s criminal conviction.

ISSUE

1. Whether Clin Timtim was negligent in driving the vehicle that caused the death of Catalina to hold his employer ES Trucking liable under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code.
2. Whether the complaint for quasi-delict against ES Trucking may proceed independently of the criminal action for Reckless Imprudence resulting to Homicide.
3. Whether ES Trucking is a common carrier required by law to observe extraordinary diligence.
4. Whether ES Trucking exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its driver, Timtim.
5. Whether the Heirs of Catalina are entitled to damages.

RULING

1. Yes, Timtim was negligent. The Supreme Court found that Timtim failed to exercise vigilance. Catalina had already crossed half the road and was sideswiped, with her body found under the fuel tank behind the left front wheel. A prudent driver would have seen her and stopped. The Court noted that Timtim’s conviction for Reckless Imprudence in the criminal case, which ES Trucking admitted in its CA Appellee’s Brief, supports this finding of negligence.
2. Yes, the civil case for quasi-delict may proceed independently. Under the Rules of Court and the Civil Code (Articles 31 and 2177), a civil action based on quasi-delict proceeds independently of the criminal action and requires only a preponderance of evidence, regardless of the criminal case’s outcome.
3. Yes, ES Trucking is a common carrier. The vehicle involved was a prime mover truck attached to a trailer, used for hauling cargo for a fee. Under Article 1732 of the Civil Code and relevant transportation laws, ES Trucking is engaged in the business of carriage of goods for others and is thus a common carrier required to observe extraordinary diligence.
4. No, ES Trucking failed to prove due diligence in the selection and supervision of Timtim. As a common carrier, ES Trucking is presumed negligent. To rebut this, it must prove extraordinary diligence. The evidence showed ES Trucking hired Timtim without requiring specific training for driving a trailer truck as mandated by Department Order No. 2011-25. Furthermore, its sole proof of supervision was a self-serving certification of a seminar attendance, with no evidence of actual monitoring of drivers’ records or compliance with safety regulations. This constitutes a failure to exercise the required diligence.
5. Yes, the Heirs of Catalina are entitled to damages. The Court awarded actual damages of P470,197.05 (supported by receipts), moral damages of P100,000.00, exemplary damages of P100,000.00, attorney’s fees of P100,000.00, and costs of suit. Legal interest of 6% per annum on all monetary awards from the date of the filing of the complaint (June 14, 2013) until full satisfaction was also imposed. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the CA and RTC.