G.R. No. 71137 , October 5, 1989
SPOUSES FEDERICO FRANCO and FELICISIMA R. FRANCO, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ANTONIO REYES, MRS. SUSAN CHUAY and LOLITA LUGUE, respondents.

FACTS

On October 18, 1974, a Franco Bus, driven by Macario Yuro, swerved into the opposite lane on MacArthur Highway to avoid a parked truck, colliding head-on with an oncoming Isuzu Mini Bus. The collision resulted in the deaths of both drivers, Yuro and Magdaleno Lugue, and two passengers of the mini bus. The owners of the mini bus, Antonio Reyes, and the widows of the deceased passengers, Susan Chuay and Lolita Lugue, filed an action for damages against the spouses Federico and Felicisima Franco, the owners and operators of the Franco Bus. The complaint alleged the recklessness of the Franco Bus driver as the cause.
The Franco spouses, as defendants, raised the affirmative defense that they exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of their driver, Macario Yuro. The trial court rejected this defense, ruling that the driver’s act constituted criminal negligence, making the employer’s civil liability arise under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code (subsidiary liability) and not under Article 2180 of the Civil Code (primary liability for quasi-delict). The court awarded damages to the plaintiffs. On appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the liability but increased the damages awarded to the widows Chuay and Lugue.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the action for damages was based on crime (making employers subsidiarily liable) or quasi-delict (making employers primarily liable, but allowing the defense of due diligence in selection and supervision); and (2) whether the appellate court could increase the damage awards for parties who did not appeal the trial court’s decision.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the action was indeed based on quasi-delict under the Civil Code, not on the crime under the Revised Penal Code. The Court emphasized that the allegations in the complaint, particularly the claim that the employer was jointly and severally liable for the employee’s negligent act, clearly characterized the action as one arising from quasi-delict. Consequently, the defense of having exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of employees, as provided under Article 2180, was available in principle. However, the Court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts that the Franco Bus driver was negligent. Since the petitioners failed to sufficiently prove they exercised such required diligence, their primary liability under the Civil Code was affirmed.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that the appellate court erred in increasing the compensatory damages for loss of earning capacity awarded to the widows Chuay and Lugue. As these plaintiffs did not appeal the trial court’s decision, they were deemed to have accepted the awarded amounts. An appellee who does not appeal cannot be granted affirmative relief greater than what was awarded by the lower court. Therefore, the increased awards for loss of earning capacity were reduced back to the amounts originally claimed and awarded by the trial court: P6,000.00 for Lugue and P12,000.00 for Chuay. The increase in the indemnity for death to P30,000.00 each was sustained, as this was a procedural correction in line with prevailing jurisprudence. The decision of the Court of Appeals was modified accordingly.