Bachelor Express, Inc. v. Spouses Santos

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 244132. June 17, 2020.]

BACHELOR EXPRESS, INC., petitioner, vs. SPS. AMADO V. SANTOS AND CANDIDA S. SANTOS, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 17, 2020 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 244132 — BACHELOR EXPRESS, INC., petitioner, versusSPS. AMADO V. SANTOS AND CANDIDA S. SANTOS, respondents.

Spouses Amado and Candida Santos filed a complaint for damages and attorney's fees based on quasi-delict against Bachelor Express, Inc. and Rolando Labajo before the Regional Trial Court docketed as Civil Case No. 31,652-06. 1 They alleged that on October 27, 2006, at around 6:00 in the evening, Bachelor Express' passenger bus driven by Rolando bumped and ran over their 11-year old son, Andrei, causing his death. Also, they claimed that the bus was running very fast while traversing along the road. 2

In their defense, Bachelor Express and Rolando argued that the bus was running very slow since passengers had just disembarked. They explained that Rolando was initially driving at the speed of 30 km/h but upon seeing Andrei, he slowed down at 10 km/h. Moreover, they claimed that the proximate cause of Andrei's death was his own recklessness in suddenly crossing the street without any sign or warning and without looking at both sides of the road. 3

On November 27, 2014, the RTC held Bachelor Express and Rolando solidarily liable for damages. 4 It noted that Rolando was negligent in performing his assigned tasks during the incident. On the other hand, Bachelor Express is vicariously liable under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code because it failed to prove due diligence in the supervision of its employees. 5 Aggrieved, Bachelor Express and Rolando elevated the case to the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 04512-MIN.

On June 21, 2018, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC. It also awarded Spouses Santos exemplary damages and attorney's fees. 6 The CA ruled that Bachelor Express is primary liable considering that it is both the employer of Rolando and the registered owner of the bus. Applying Mendoza v. Spouses Gomez, 7 the CA explained that the defenses under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code are no longer available upon the enactment of the motor vehicle registration law. 8 The registered owner of the vehicle is directly and primarily responsible to the public and to third persons. 9 Bachelor Express sought reconsideration but was denied. 10 Hence, this petition.

Bachelor Express maintains that it is not solidarily liable because it submitted preponderant evidence showing due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. Further, it contends that the award for the loss of earning capacity in the amount of P2,760,000.00 is exorbitant.

The petition is unmeritorious.

Foremost, Bachelor Express raised a question regarding the RTC and CA's award of loss of earning capacity which entails an appreciation of the evidence which is one of fact 11 and is beyond the ambit of this Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari. It is not this Court's task to go over the proofs presented below to ascertain if they were appreciated and weighed correctly, most especially when the RTC and the CA speak as one in their findings and conclusions. 12

Anent the nature of liability, the RTC and CA correctly held that Bachelor Express is solidarily liable with Rolando. However, the CA misapplied the ruling in Mendoza case. Notably, we already harmonized in Caravan Travel v. Abejar13 the registered-owner rule and the employer's vicarious liability under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code. We explained that the Mendoza case should not be interpreted to mean that Article 2180 should be entirely disregarded in case the registered-owner rule applies. The Caravan case cited Del Carmen, Jr. v. Bacoy14 which emphasized that Article 2180 merely "should defer to" the registered-owner rule. It never stated that Article 2180 should be totally abandoned.

Thus, the appropriate approach in cases where both the registered-owner rule and Article 2180 apply, the plaintiff must first establish that the employer is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. Once the plaintiff successfully proves ownership, there arises a disputable presumption that the requirements of Article 2180 have been proven. As a consequence, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to show that no liability under Article 2180 has arisen. 15 In this case, Bachelor Express admitted that it is the owner of the bus. Hence, a presumption that the requirements of Article 2180 arises. The burden now shifts to Bachelor Express to establish its defenses. 16 Yet, Bachelor Express failed to overcome the presumption.

Indeed, the RTC and CA found that Rolando is an employee of Bachelor Express and was acting within the scope of his assigned tasks. Also, they ruled that Rolando was negligent in driving the passenger bus. Lastly, the records reveal that Bachelor Express failed to prove that it exercised due diligence in the supervision of its employees. It is settled that due diligence in the supervision of employees includes the formulation rules and regulations for the guidance of employees and the issuance of proper instructions intended for the protection of the public and the imposition of necessary disciplinary measures in case of breach. The actual implementation and monitoring of consistent compliance with said rules should be the constant concern of the employer. 17 Here, Bachelor Express did not submit sufficient evidence showing that it provided guidelines to its drivers on speed limits, road safety, and the corresponding disciplinary measures for non-compliance.

FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, at 77.

2.Id. at 10.

3.Id. at 10.

4.Id. at 77-95. The RTC Decision disposed as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of [Spouses Santos] and against [Bachelor Express, Inc. and Labajo]. [Bachelor Express, Inc. and Labajo] are hereby ordered to pay JOINTLY and SOLIDARILY to [Spouses Santos] the following amounts:

1. Indemnity for the death of Andrei Anthony Santos	-	Php75,000.00
2. Actual Compensatory Damages (Funeral Expenses)	-	[PhP]191,595.25
3. Loss of Earning Capacity of Andrei Anthony Santos	-	[PhP]2,760,000.00
4. Judicial Costs	-	[PhP]132,088.19
5. Moral Damages	-	[PhP]1,000,000.00

 

SO ORDERED.

5.Id. at 87-90.

6.Id. at 9-16. The CA Decision disposed as follows:

ACCORDINGLY, the Decision dated November 27, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Davao City in Civil Case No. 31,652-06 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. [Spouses Santos] are awarded with Exemplary Damages in the amount of PhP50,000.00 and Attorney's Fees in the amount of PhP50,000.00 in addition to the monetary awards granted by the RTC.

SO ORDERED.

7. G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2014.

8.Id. at 14-15.

9.Id.

10.Id. at 17.

11. The indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven by competent proof and the best obtainable evidence thereof. Thus, as a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. See Jose v. Angeles, G.R. No. 187899, October 23, 2013, citing Philippine Hawk Corporation v. Lee, G.R. No. 166869, February 16, 2010. See also Heirs of George Y. Poe v. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc., G.R. No. 156302, April 7, 2009; and People v. Bernabe, G.R. No. 185726, October 16, 2009.

12.Rogelia R. Gatan, et al. v. Jesusa Vinarao, et al., G.R. No. 205912, October 18, 2017; Heirs of Teresita Villanueva, et al. v. Heirs of Petronila Suquia Mendoza, et al., G.R. No. 209132, June 5, 2017; and Bacsasar v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 180853, January 20, 2009.

13. G.R. No. 170631, February 10, 2016.

14. G.R. No. 173870, April 25, 2012.

15.Caravan Travel v. Abejar, supra.

16. The defenses include: (1) that it had no employment relationship with the driver; (2) that the driver acted outside the scope of his assigned tasks; or (3) that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of the driver.

17.Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104408, June 21, 1993.