Travel n Tours v. Cruz et. al.

FACTS:

Edgar Hernandez owns an Isuzu Passenger Jitney which he was driving along Angeles-Magalang Road. A passenger bus (RCJ Bus Lines) owned by Travel & Tours was driven by Edgar Calaycay. The bus was travelling in the same direction as the jeepney. The bus bumped the rear portion of the jeepney causing it to ram into an acacia tree and resulted in the death of Alberto Cruz and serious physical injuries of Virginia Muñoz.

Hernandez, Muñoz and the father of Alberto Cruz filed a complaint for damages claiming that the Calaycay was negligent in driving the bus. Travel & Tours claimed the exercise of diligence of the good father of the family in hiring Calaycay and further claimed that it was Hernandez’ negligence that caused the accident when the jeep cut across the lane of the bus.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Travel & Tours is liable for damages.

HELD:

YES. Travel & Tours is liable for damages.

As owner of the bus and employer of Calaycay, Travel & Tours is liable.

Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides:

"Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter."

Article 2180 states:

"The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible x x x.

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry x x x."

Article 2180, in relation to Article 2176, of the Civil Code provides that the employer of a negligent employee is liable for the damages caused by the latter. When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee there instantly arises a presumption of the law that there was negligence on the part of the employer either in the selection of his employee or in the supervision over him after such selection. The presumption, however, may be rebutted by a clear showing on the part of the employer that it had exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee. Hence, to escape solidary liability for quasi-delict committed by an employee, the employer must adduce sufficient proof that it exercised such degree of care. In this case, the petitioner failed to do so.

Edgar Calaycay was duly authorized by the defendant company to drive the bus at the time of the incident. Petitioner’s claim that it has issued policies, rules and regulations to be followed, conduct seminars and see to it that their drivers and employees imbibe such policies, rules and regulations, have their drivers and conductors medically checked-up and undergo drug-testing, did not show that all these rudiments were applied to Edgar Calaycay. No iota of evidence was presented that Edgar Calaycay had undergone all these activities to ensure that he is a safe and capable driver. In fact, the defendant company did not put up a defense on the said driver. The defendant company did not even secure a counsel to defend the driver.

Travel & Tours did not even know the correct and true name of its drivers. In one of the pieces of evidence presented by Travel & Tours, the name of the driver was Calaycay Francisco. Hence, the liability of the employer for the tortuous acts or negligence of its employer is primary and solidary, direct and immediate, and not conditional upon the insolvency of prior recourse against the negligent employee.

However, both vehicles were not in their authorized routes at the time of the incident the jeepney was in violation of its allowed route as found by the RTC and the CA, hence, the owner and driver of the jeepney likewise, are guilty of negligence as defined under Article 2179 of the Civil Code:

When the plaintiffs negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.

Since it has been established that the proximate cause of the death of Alberto Cruz, Jr. is the negligence of Calaycay with the contributory negligence of Hernandez, the heirs of Alberto Cruz, Jr. shall recover damages of only 50% of the award from petitioner and its driver and the other 50% by Hernandez.