G.R. No. L-1722; October 29, 1965
NIEVES QUINIO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. MARCELO MUÑOZ, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On May 25, 1957, Artemio Velosa and Victor Gamab were killed while fixing their truck on a provincial road in Cabuyao, Laguna, when they were hit by a speeding pick-up truck owned by Daniel Miranda and driven by Marcelo Muñoz. The pick-up truck, with plate No. TH-3862, was delivering Manila Chronicle and Philippines Herald newspapers to news agents along the Manila-San Pablo-Batangas route. A criminal case was filed against Muñoz, who was found guilty of double homicide through reckless imprudence. The heirs of the deceased filed a civil action in the Batangas Court of First Instance against Muñoz, Miranda, Manila Chronicle, and Philippines Herald. The lower court held Muñoz and Miranda liable for damages but absolved the Chronicle and the Herald, ruling that their relationship with Miranda was that of shippers and carrier, not employers and employee. The plaintiffs appealed this absolutory portion of the decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Manila Chronicle and the Philippines Herald are liable for damages arising from the accident, based on either (1) an employer-employee relationship with the carrier, Daniel Miranda, or (2) liability under Article 377 of the Code of Commerce.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, absolving the Manila Chronicle and the Philippines Herald from liability.
1. On the Employer-Employee Relationship: The Court found no employer-employee relationship between the newspapers (shippers) and Miranda (carrier). The “Carriage Agreement” between them stipulated that Miranda, as the carrier, would transport and deliver newspapers daily for a fixed sum per trip, with specific conditions on timing, exclusivity, penalties for delay or failure, and liability for third-party damages. Applying the control test and other factors from the Restatement of Agency, the Court held that the shippers’ control was limited to the result (the delivery of newspapers) and not the means and methods of performing the work. Miranda owned the delivery truck, worked for a short duration (about four hours), was paid per trip, and was engaged in a distinct occupation as a truck-for-hire operator. The shippers did not supervise the details of his work, and the contract indicated an independent carrier relationship.
2. On Liability under Article 377 of the Code of Commerce: The Court held this provision inapplicable. First, Article 377 governs the rights and duties of shippers and carriers in the absence of a contract, whereas the parties here had a “Carriage Agreement.” Second, the plaintiffs raised this theory for the first time only in their motion for reconsideration in the lower court, having previously relied solely on quasi-delict liability. A change of theory on appeal is not allowed.
Therefore, the decision appealed from was affirmed.