Global Automotive Technologies of Davao, Inc. v. Legaspina

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 247261. September 2, 2019.]

GLOBAL AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES OF DAVAO, INC., REPRESENTED BY RODOLFO A. HAO, PRESIDENT, petitioner, vs.MYRNA B. LEGASPINA, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated02 September 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 247261 — GLOBAL AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES OF DAVAO, INC., REPRESENTED BY RODOLFO A. HAO, PRESIDENT v. MYRNA B. LEGASPINA

Negligence is defined as the failure to observe that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, by reason of which another person suffers injury. The test to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case is: Did the defendant in the performance of the alleged negligent act use reasonable care and caution which an ordinary person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. 1

Records show that petitioner had just repaired the subject vehicle when respondent's husband Balthie Legaspina noticed that the signal lights were not working. Balthie and son made another examination of the vehicle once they got home and discovered more damage to it. Soon after, the hood of the vehicle was on fire. The fire eventually spread engulfing respondent's entire house. Balthie sustained serious burn injuries and died soon thereafter. Per Investigation Report dated March 20, 2009, the Bureau of Fire-Talomo Station, Davao City found that the fire's point of origin was the subject vehicle caused by electric short circuiting.

The series of events clearly revealed that the negligent act of petitioner in the repair of respondent's vehicle was the natural and probable result of the electric short circuit and consequently, the fire which caused Balthie's death and damage to respondent's properties.

Petitioner, nonetheless, tried to place the blame on respondent by insisting that in attempting to fix the vehicle, Balthie and son did more damage to it. This efficient intervening cause was most probably the cause of the fire.

We disagree. Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Company explained:

Proximate cause is "that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new cause, produces an event, and without which the event would not have occurred." x x x

xxx xxx xxx

To be considered the proximate cause of the injury, the negligence need not be the event closest in time to the injury; a cause is still proximate, although farther in time in relation to the injury, if the happening of it set other foreseeable events into motion resulting ultimately in the damage. x x x

xxx xxx xxx

The question of proximate cause is said to be determined, not by the existence or non-existence of intervening events, but by their character and the natural connection between the original act or omission and the injurious consequences. When the intervening cause is set in operation by the original negligence, such negligence is still the proximate cause; x x x If the party guilty of the first act of negligence might have anticipated the intervening cause, the connection is not broken; x x x. Any number of causes and effects may intervene, and if they arc n such as might with reasonable diligence have been foreseen, the last result is to be considered as the proximate result. But whenever a new cause intervenes, which is not a consequence of the first wrongful cause, which is not under control of the wrongdoer, which could not have been foreseen by the exercise of reasonable diligence, and except for which the final injurious consequence could not have happened, then such injurious consequence must be deemed too remote. 2 (Underscoring supplied)

Verily, Balthie and his son's act of attempting to fix the vehicle, albeit an intervening cause, was not efficient enough to break the chain of connection between the negligence of petitioner and the injurious consequence suffered by respondent.

Petitioner knew and should have foreseen that there was a strong possibility of electric short circuit because of the repair done on the subject vehicle. However, it failed to apprise respondent of this possible occurrence and even certified the vehicle for release. Clearly, petitioner's negligence was the proximate cause of the damage sustained by respondent.

The Civil Code provides that whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. 3 The obligation imposed is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. Thus, employers are liable for the damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. The employer's responsibility shall cease when it is proven that all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage was duly performed. 4

To avoid the solidary liability for a tort committed by his employee, an employer must present adequate and convincing proof that in the selection and supervision of his employee, he or she exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family. Employers must submit concrete proof, including documentary evidence, that they complied with everything that was incumbent on them.

Petitioner here attempts to escape vicarious liability by averring that it implemented strict rules in selecting and supervising its employees. However, petitioner merely offered the testimonies of its Operations Manager and President regarding the company's hiring process sans any documentary evidence to support it. This bare allegation without more does not constitute sufficient basis to prove that it exercised the diligence of a good father or mitigate its negligence for the negligence of its own employee.

Syki v. Begasa declared that an employer must not merely present testimonial evidence to prove that he had observed the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee, but he must also support such testimonial evidence with concrete or documentary evidence. The reason for this is to obviate the biased nature of the employer's testimony or that of his witnesses. In that case, the employer's evidence consisted only of testimonial evidence. The Court, thus, ruled that the unsubstantiated and self-serving testimonies of the employer is insufficient to overcome the legal presumption that it was negligent in the selection and supervision of his driver. 5

So must it be.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated September 4, 2018 and Resolution dated March 12, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 04792-MIN, AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Agusan Del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Balen, 620 Phil. 485, 490 (2009).

2. 807 Phil. 317, 358-360 (2017).

3. Article 2176.

4. Article 2180.

5. 460 Phil. 381, 389-390 (2003).

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official copy.