LARRY ESTACION, PETITIONER, VS. NOE BERNARDO, THRU AND HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM ARLIE BERNARDO, CECILIA BANDOQUILLO AND GEMINIANO QUINQUILLERA, RESPONDENTS.

Estacion versus Bernardo

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Larry Estacion, the registered owner of an Isuzu cargo truck, against Noe Bernardo, who was injured in a vehicular collision, and against Cecilia Bandoquillo and Geminiano Quinquillera, the owner and the driver of the passenger jeepney on which Bernardo was riding. The action began as a complaint for damages arising from quasi delict, and it matters because the Supreme Court here sorts out three overlapping liabilities in one accident: the employer's liability for his negligent driver, the contributory negligence of the injured passenger, and the negligence of the jeepney driver and his own employer. It is a compact lesson in proximate cause, the presumption of employer negligence, and the mitigation of damages.

Procedural History

Noe Bernardo, through his guardian ad litem Arlie Bernardo, filed a complaint for damages arising from quasi delict before the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 41, Negros Oriental, against Larry Estacion as owner of the cargo truck and against his driver Bienvenido Gerosano. Estacion and Gerosano answered and filed a third party complaint against Cecilia Bandoquillo and Geminiano Quinquillera, the owner and driver of the Fiera. In a separate criminal case, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Pamplona-Amlan and San Jose, Negros Oriental found Gerosano guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple physical injuries with damage to property.

The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment holding Gerosano and Estacion solidarily liable for actual damages, moral damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses, and it dismissed the third party complaint. Only Estacion appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court in full. Estacion's motion for reconsideration was denied, and he came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

In the afternoon of October 16, 1982, Noe Bernardo was traveling home to Dumaguete from Cebu. At Tampi he boarded a Ford Fiera passenger jeepney driven by Geminiano Quinquillera and owned by Cecilia Bandoquillo, and he sat on the extension seat at the center of the vehicle. When an old woman boarded at San Jose, Bernardo gave up his seat; because the Fiera was already full, he stood on the left rear carrier of the vehicle.

Along Barangay Santo Niño, San Jose, Negros Oriental, between kilometers 13 and 14, the Fiera slowed down and stopped by the right shoulder of the road to pick up passengers. Suddenly an Isuzu cargo truck, owned by Larry Estacion and driven by Bienvenido Gerosano, traveling in the same direction, hit the rear end portion of the Fiera where Bernardo was standing. The force of the impact crushed his legs and feet, and he fell to the ground. He was brought to the Silliman University Medical Center, where his lower left leg was amputated.

Police investigation showed that Bernardo was one of eleven passengers of the Fiera who were injured; that the cargo truck bumped the rear left portion of the Fiera as it stopped to pick up a passenger; and that only one tire mark from the front right wheel of the cargo truck was seen on the road. The investigator's sketch showed the positions of the two vehicles, their distances from the shoulder, and a skid mark of the truck's right front wheel measuring about 48 feet.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that petitioner Larry Estacion exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that petitioner exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of his employee and in maintaining his cargo truck roadworthy and in good operating condition.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in exonerating respondents Cecilia Bandoquillo and Geminiano Quinquillera.

Applicable Provisions

Article 2180 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 2180. 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. 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. The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.

This is the provision that makes the employer primarily and solidarily liable for the quasi delict of his employee, unless he rebuts the legal presumption of negligence in selection and supervision.

Section 32, paragraph c, of Article III of Republic Act Number 4136, the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, provides:

Riding on running boards. No driver shall allow any person to ride on running board, step board or mudguard of his motor vehicle for any purpose while the vehicle is in motion.

This is the traffic rule that the Fiera driver violated when he allowed Bernardo to stand on the rear carrier, and the violation supports the finding of the driver's own negligence.

Article 2179 of the Civil Code provides:

When the plaintiff's own 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.

This is the provision that requires the mitigation of the damages awarded to Bernardo because of his own contributory negligence.

Ruling

On the first and second issues, the Court held that Estacion failed to rebut the presumption of negligence in the selection and supervision of his driver. As employer, he is primarily and solidarily liable for the quasi delict of Gerosano, and he may be relieved only by showing that he observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. The Court explained that this diligence means diligence in selection and supervision, and that a juris tantum presumption — a presumption that stands unless rebutted — arises against the employer. Estacion did not examine Gerosano as to his qualifications, experience, and service records; Gerosano was accepted on the very day he applied, his license was issued in Mindanao, and he presented no document of his driving record. Nor did Estacion show training programs and guidelines on road safety, and there was no record of the routine inspection of the truck. The Court likewise affirmed that the proximate cause of the injury was Gerosano's negligent driving at a fast speed with faulty brakes, as shown by the 48-foot skid mark and the single tire mark.

On the third issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in exonerating Bandoquillo and Quinquillera. Bernardo himself testified that he stood at the rear because the Fiera was already full, so Quinquillera should not have taken more passengers than the vehicle could accommodate, and he was negligent in allowing Bernardo to stand on the rear portion in violation of the traffic rule quoted above. Since Quinquillera was negligent, the presumption of negligence arose against his employer Bandoquillo, and she did not rebut it. The dismissal of the third party complaint was therefore wrong.

The Court also held that Bernardo was guilty of contributory negligence. His act of standing on the rear carrier exposed him to bodily injury and showed a lack of ordinary care and foresight. Because his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause being the lack of due care of the petitioner, he may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded under Article 2179.

Doctrine

An employer is primarily and solidarily liable for the quasi delict committed by his employee acting within the scope of his assigned tasks. The employer is presumed negligent in the selection and supervision of his employee, and he is relieved of responsibility only if he proves that he observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. That diligence requires more than the applicant's possession of a professional driver's license; the employer must examine the applicant's qualifications, experience, and record of service, and must show supervision through training programs and guidelines on road safety. A violation of a traffic regulation by a driver gives rise to the presumption that he was negligent, and from his negligence arises the presumption of negligence on the part of his employer in supervision. Finally, the contributory negligence of the injured party does not bar recovery where the immediate and proximate cause of the injury is the defendant's lack of due care; it merely requires the courts to mitigate the damages to be awarded.

Disposition

The petition was granted in part; the Court set aside the dismissal of the third party complaint and held respondents Quinquillera and Bandoquillo liable, while affirming the liability of petitioner Estacion and his driver Gerosano but mitigating the damages because of respondent Noe Bernardo's contributory negligence.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the employer's liability for the quasi delict of his employee is presumed, and only the diligence of a good father of a family in selection and supervision can rebut it. Examiners use this case to test the employer's presumption of negligence, the effect of a traffic violation under the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, and the mitigation of damages under Article 2179 for contributory negligence.