G.R. No. L-22533 February 9, 1967
PLACIDO C. RAMOS and AUGUSTO L. RAMOS, petitioners, vs. PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING CO. OF THE P.I. and ANDRES BONIFACIO, respondents.

FACTS

On May 10, 1958, a collision occurred between a car owned by Placido Ramos and driven by his son, Augusto Ramos, and a tractor-truck and trailer owned by Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of the P.I. (PEPSI-COLA) and driven by its employee, Andres Bonifacio. Placido and Augusto Ramos sued PEPSI-COLA and Bonifacio for damages in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The trial court found Bonifacio negligent and held that PEPSI-COLA failed to prove it exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. It ordered both defendants solidarily liable to pay damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of negligence against Bonifacio but modified the judgment by absolving PEPSI-COLA from liability, finding that the company sufficiently proved due diligence in the selection of its driver, Bonifacio. The Ramos petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that PEPSI-COLA’s evidence failed to show due diligence in selection.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that respondent PEPSI-COLA exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of its driver, Andres Bonifacio, thereby absolving it from liability for the damages arising from the collision.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the issue raised by the petitioners involved the credibility of PEPSI-COLA’s witness, Juan T. Añasco, the personnel manager, whose testimony established that the company carefully examined Bonifacio’s background, required clearances, considered his previous experience, required a physical examination, and subjected him to theoretical and practical driving examinations. This constituted a question of fact, and the findings of the Court of Appeals on such matters are generally conclusive and not reviewable by the Supreme Court. Based on these accepted facts, PEPSI-COLA exercised the required due diligence in selection as outlined in Campo vs. Camarote (53 O.G. 2794). The Court further noted that the petitioners confined their arguments to due diligence in selection and that the record showed evidence of due diligence in supervision as well. The petitioners’ other assignments of error, including an alleged violation of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law (raised in a motion for reconsideration), were found without merit. The Court clarified that under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, an employer’s liability is based on its own negligence in selection and supervision, not on the principle of respondeat superior, and such liability ceases upon proof of the diligence of a good father of a family.