SPOUSES FRANCISCO M. HERNANDEZ AND ANICETA ABEL-HERNANDEZ AND JUAN GONZALES, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES LORENZO DOLOR AND MARGARITA DOLOR, FRED PANOPIO, JOSEPH SANDOVAL, RENE CAST…

Hernandez versus Dolor

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by the spouses Francisco Hernandez and Aniceta Abel-Hernandez, together with their driver Juan Gonzales, against the spouses Lorenzo Dolor and Margarita Dolor and the other injured passengers and heirs of the victims of a vehicular collision. The respondents sued for damages arising from a road accident in which two persons died and several others were injured. The case matters because it settles two questions every torts examinee must be able to answer: whether an employer who was not inside the vehicle may be held solidarily liable with a negligent driver, and whether the so-called boundary system of jeepney operation is truly a lease or in truth an employment.

Procedural History

The respondents commenced an action for damages before the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch Four, alleging that driver Juan Gonzales was negligent and that the Hernandez spouses were negligent in the selection and supervision of their employees. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the respondents, holding the petitioners jointly and severally liable for death indemnity, funeral expenses, the value of the wrecked owner-type jeep, moral damages, temperate items, and litigation expenses and attorney's fees.

The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision with modifications as to the amounts of damages, actual expenses, and attorney's fees. The petitioners then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court through a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Facts

At about three o'clock in the afternoon of December 19, 1986, Lorenzo Menard Dolor, Jr., known as Boyet, was driving an owner-type jeepney owned by his mother Margarita, heading toward Anilao, Batangas. As he traversed the road at Barangay Anilao East, Mabini, Batangas, his vehicle collided with a passenger jeepney driven by Juan Gonzales and owned by Francisco Hernandez, which was traveling toward Batangas City. The owner-type jeep was going uphill and had just passed a road bend; the passenger jeepney was going downhill and traveling fast when it bumped the owner-type jeep.

Boyet Dolor and his passenger Oscar Valmocina died as a result of the collision. Fred Panopio, Rene Castillo, and Joseph Sandoval, who were on board the owner-type jeep, suffered physical injuries, and the jeep was totally wrecked. The passenger jeepney was also damaged, and its passengers were likewise injured.

The petitioners countered that the proximate cause of the deaths and injuries was the recklessness of Boyet Dolor, who was driving in a zigzagging manner under the influence of alcohol. They also alleged that Gonzales was not their employee, since he merely leased the passenger jeepney on a daily basis for a rental of 150 pesos, and that even if an employment relationship existed, they had exercised due care in the selection and supervision of their employee. The evidence showed that Gonzales obtained his professional driver's license only on September 24, 1986, about three months before the accident.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in pronouncing the Hernandez spouses solidarily liable with Juan Gonzales although they were not inside the passenger jeepney when the accident occurred.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in awarding temperate damages to the respondents although the trial court had not granted them.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in increasing the award of moral damages to the respondents.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in affirming the grant of attorney's fees although the lower court did not specify the fact and the law on which it was based.

Applicable Provisions

Article 2184 of the Civil Code provides:

ARTICLE 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months. If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of article 2180 are applicable.

This is the provision invoked by the Hernandez spouses, who argued that because they were not inside the jeepney, the rules on employer liability under Article 2180 should govern instead.

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. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. 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 State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable. Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody. 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 fixes the employer's responsibility for the acts of employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks.

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.

This is the source obligation that Article 2180 makes demandable against the persons for whom one is responsible.

Article 2194 of the Civil Code provides:

The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary.

This is the provision from which the Court infers the solidary character of the employer's liability.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Hernandez spouses are solidarily liable with their driver. While Article 2180 does not expressly provide for solidary liability, the Court reasoned that this can be inferred from its first paragraph, which states that 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. Article 2180 must be read together with Article 2194, which categorically states that the responsibility of two or more persons liable for a quasi-delict is solidary. In other words, the liability of joint tortfeasors is solidary, and under Article 2180 an employer may be held solidarily liable for the negligent act of his employee.

The Court then resolved whether Gonzales was an employee of the Hernandez spouses. It rejected the claim of a lease, characterizing the arrangement as the boundary system of jeepney operation disguised as a lease agreement. The Court held that to exempt the owner of a public vehicle who operates it under the boundary system on the ground that he is a mere lessor would be not only to abet flagrant violations of the Public Service Law, but also to place the riding public at the mercy of reckless and irresponsible drivers, reckless because the measure of their earnings depends largely upon the number of trips they make and hence the speed at which they drive, and irresponsible because most of them are in no position to pay the damages they might cause.

On the second issue, the Court upheld the award of temperate damages. Temperate or moderate damages are more than nominal but less than compensatory, and may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty. The Court found that the respondents suffered losses that cannot be quantified in monetary terms, and that the amounts awarded were reasonable under the circumstances.

On the third issue, the Court found no cogent reason to overturn the increased moral damages. Under Article 2206, the spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish for the death of the deceased. Moral damages are aimed at restoring, within the limits possible, the spiritual status quo ante, and must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted; they are emphatically not intended to enrich a plaintiff at the expense of the defendant.

On the fourth issue, the Court deleted the attorney's fees. Attorney's fees should not be awarded in the absence of stipulation except under the instances enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code, and an award demands a factual, legal, or equitable justification stated in the text of the decision, not left to speculation and conjecture.

Doctrine

An employer may be held solidarily liable for the negligent act of his employee under a quasi-delict. Although Article 2180 does not expressly say so, solidary liability is inferred from its first paragraph and confirmed by Article 2194, which declares that the responsibility of two or more persons liable for a quasi-delict is solidary. The owner of a public vehicle who operates it under the boundary system cannot escape liability by clothing the arrangement as a lease; the operator remains the employer of the driver. Temperate damages may be awarded when a pecuniary loss is shown but cannot be proved with certainty, and the assessment is left to the sound discretion of the court so long as the award is reasonable. Moral damages must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted and are not meant to enrich the plaintiff. Attorney's fees, absent stipulation, require a factual, legal, or equitable justification stated in the text of the decision.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed with the modification that the grant of attorney's fees was deleted for lack of basis, with costs against the petitioners.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: the liability of joint tortfeasors is solidary, and an employer is a joint tortfeasor with his negligent employee. Examiners use this case to test the solidary liability of employers under Article 2180 read with Article 2194, and to expose the boundary system as a disguised employment that cannot shield the vehicle owner from liability.