G.R. No. 82248. January 30, 1992.
ERNESTO MARTIN, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ernesto Martin owned a private car which, while being driven by Nestor Martin, crashed into and severely damaged a Meralco electric post. Meralco sued Ernesto Martin for damages under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, alleging he was liable as the employer of the driver, Nestor Martin. The petitioner’s main defense was that Nestor Martin was not his employee. After Meralco presented its evidence, the petitioner moved to dismiss, arguing Meralco failed to prove the employer-employee relationship. The trial court denied the motion. The petitioner then expressly waived his right to present evidence, and the case was submitted for decision.
The trial court ruled in favor of Meralco, holding the petitioner liable. It presumed an employer-employee relationship existed merely from the petitioner’s ownership of the car and the fact that Nestor Martin was driving it. The court reasoned that a car owner typically entrusts his vehicle only to his driver, and since the petitioner did not present proof to rebut the allegation of employment, the presumption stood. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision which held the petitioner liable based on a presumption of an employer-employee relationship, despite the private respondent’s failure to present evidence to prove such relationship.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and dismissed the complaint. The Court held that for an employer to be held liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code for the tortious act of an employee, the plaintiff must first establish the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The burden of proof rests upon the party who alleges the existence of a fact, in this case, Meralco. Meralco failed to present any evidence whatsoever to prove that Nestor Martin was an employee of the petitioner. The trial court’s deduction of an employment relationship from the mere ownership of the vehicle and the act of driving was an erroneous presumption not found in law (presumption juris) nor supported as a reasonable inference from the proven facts (presumption hominis). In modern society, the driver could easily be a relative or a borrower, not necessarily an employee. Since Meralco did not discharge its burden of proof, the petitioner had no obligation to prove his negative defense. The absence of a proven employment relationship renders the application of Article 2180 and any inquiry into the driver’s negligence or the employer’s diligence in selection and supervision moot and unnecessary.