G.R. No. 22533. February 09, 1967
PLACIDO C. RAMOS AND AUGUSTO L. RAMOS, PETITIONERS, VS. PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING CO. OF THE P.I. AND ANDRES BONIFACIO, RESPONDENTS.
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
On June 30, 1958
Placido and Augusto Ramos sued
Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of the P.I.[1]
and Andres Bonifacio in the Court of First Instance
of Manila as a consequence of a
collision, on May 10, 1958,
involving the car of Placido Ramos and a
tractor-truck and trailer of PEPSI-COLA.
Said car was at the time of the collision driven by Augusto
Ramos, son and co-plaintiff of Placido. PEPSI-COLA’s tractor-truck was then driven by
its driver and co-defendant Andres Bonifacio.
After trial, the Court of First Instance rendered judgment on April 15, 1961, finding Bonifacio negligent and declaring that PEPSI-COLA had not
sufficiently proved its having exercised the due diligence of a good father of
a family to prevent the damage.
PEPSI-COLA and Bonifacio, solidarily,
were ordered to pay the plaintiffs P2,638.50 actual damages; P2,000.00 moral
damages; P2,000.00 as exemplary damages; and, P1,000.00 attorney’s fees, with
costs.
Not satisfied with this decision, the defendants appealed to the
Court of Appeals.
Said Court, on January 15, 1964, affirmed the trial court’s
judgment insofar as it found defendant Bonifacio
negligent, but modified it by absolving defendant PEPSI-COLA from liability,
finding that, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, PEPSI-COLA sufficiently
proved due diligence in the selection of its driver Bonifacio.
Plaintiffs thereupon appealed to Us through this petition for
review of the Court of Appeals’ decision.
And appellants would argue before this Court that defendant
PEPSI-COLA’s evidence failed to show that it had exercised due diligence in
the selection of its driver in question.
Said point, as stated, was resolved by the Court of Appeals in
PEPSI-COLA’s favor, thus:
“The uncontradicted testimony of
Juan T. Añasco, personnel manager of defendant
company, was to the effect that defendant driver was first hired as a member of
the bottle crop in the production department; that when he was hired as a
driver, ‘we had size [sic] him
by looking into his background, asking him to submit clearances, previous
experience, physical examination and later on, he was sent to the pool house to
take the usual driver’s examination; consisting of: “First, theoretical examination and
second, the practical driving examination,’ all of which he had undergone, and
that the defendant company was a member of the Safety Council. In view hereof, we are of the sense that
defendant company had exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in
the choice or selection of defendant driver. In the case of Campo vs. Camarote,
G.R. No. L-9147
(1956), 53 O.G. 2794, cited in
appellee’s brief, our Supreme Court had occasion to
put it down as a rule that ‘In order that the defendant may be considered as
having exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family, he should not
have been satisfied with the mere possession of a professional driver’s
license; he should have carefully examined the applicant for employment as to
his qualifications, his experiences and record of service.’ Defendant
Company has taken all these steps.“[2]
Appellants herein seek to assail the foregoing portion of the
decision under review by taking issue with the testimony of Añasco
upon which the findings of due diligence afore-stated are rested. Thus, it is now contended that Añasco, being PEPSI-COLA’s employee, is a biased and interested
witness; and that his testimony is not believable.
It is rather clear, therefore, that appellants would raise herein
an issue of fact and credibility, something as to which this Court has
consistently respected the findings of the Court of Appeals, with some few
exceptions, which do not obtain herein.[3]
Stated differently, Añasco’s
credibility is not for this Court now to re-examine. And said witness having been found credible
by the Court of Appeals, his testimony, as accepted by said Court, cannot at
this stage be assailed. As We said in Co
Tao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-9194, April 25, 1957, assignments of error involving the
credibility of witnesses and which in effect dispute the findings of fact of
the Court of Appeals, cannot be reviewed in these proceedings. For a question to be one of law it must
involve no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the
litigants or any of them.[4]
And the distinction is well-known: There
is a question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to
what the law is on a certain state of facts; there is a question of fact when
the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged
facts.[5]
From all this it follows that for the purposes of this appeal, it
must be taken as established that, as testified to by Añasco,
PEPSI-COLA did in fact carefully examine the driver-applicant Bonifacio as to his qualifications, experiences and record
of service, taking all steps mentioned by the Court of Appeals in its decision
already quoted.
Such being the case, there can be no doubt that PEPSI-COLA
exercised the required due diligence in the selection of its driver. As ruled by this Court in Campo v. Camarote, 53 O.G. 2794, 2797: “In order that the defendant may be
considered as having exercised all diligence of a good father of a family, he
should not be satisfied with the mere possession of a professional driver’s
license; he should have carefully examined the applicant for employment as to
his qualifications, his experience and record of service.”
It should perhaps be stated that in the instant case no question
is raised as to due diligence in the supervision by PEPSI-COLA of its
driver. Article 2180 of the Civil Code
provides inter alia:
“x x
x 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.
x x x x
“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.”
And construing a similar provision of the
old Civil Code, this Court said in Bahia
v. Litonjua, 30 Phil. 624, 627:
“From this article two things are apparent: (1) That when an injury is caused by the
negligence of a servant or employee there instantly arises a presumption of law
that there was negligence on the part of the master or employer either in the
selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him after the
selection, or both; and (2) that the presumption is juris
tantum and not juris
et de jure, and consequently may
he rebutted. It follows necessarily that if the employer shows to the
satisfaction of the court that in selection and supervision he has exercised the care and diligence of a
good father of a family, the presumption is overcome and he is relieved from
liability.”
As pointed out, what appellants here contend as not duly proved
by PEPSI-COLA is only due diligence in the selection of its driver. And, parenthetically, it is not surprising that appellants thus confine their arguments
to this aspect of due diligence, since the record – as even appellants’ brief
(pp. 13-17) reflects in quoting in part the testimony of PEPSI-COLA’s witness –
would show sufficient evidence to establish due diligence in the supervision by
PEPSI-COLA of its drivers, including Bonifacio.
Appellants’ other assignment of errors are likewise outside the
purview of this Court’s reviewing power.
Thus, the question of whether PEPSI-COLA violated the Revised Motor
Vehicle Law and rules and regulations related thereto, not having been raised
and argued in the Court of Appeals, cannot be ventilated herein for the first
time.[6]
And the matter of whether or not PEPSI-COLA did acts to ratify the negligent
act of its driver is a factual issue not proper herein.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby
affirmed, with costs against appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.
[1]
For brevity hereinafter called PEPSI-COLA.
[2]
Underscoring supplied.
[3]
Among the exceptions to the rule that findings of fact by the Court of Appeals
cannot be reviewed on appeals by certiorari are:
1. When the conclusion is a finding
grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures: Joaquin vs. Navarro, 93 Phil. 257.
2. When the inference made is
manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible:
Luna vs. Linatok, 74 Phil. 15.
3. Where there is a grave abuse of
discretion: Buyco
vs. People, 51 O.G. 2927.
4. When the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts: Cruz vs.
Sosing, G.R. No. L-4875, November 27, 1953.
5. When the findings of fact are
conflicting: Casica
vs. Villaseca, G.R. No. L-9590, April 30, 1957.
6. When the Court of Appeals, in
making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is
contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee: Evangelista vs. Alto Surety &
Insurance Co., G.R. No. L-11139, April
23, 1958.
[4]
Cf. II Moran, COMMENTS ON THE
RULES OF COURT, 1963 Ed., 412.
[5]
See II Martin, RULES OF COURT IN THE PHILIPPINES,
255; II Bouvier’s
LAW DICTIONARY, 2784.
[6]
Tan Si Kiok v. Tiacho, 79 Phil.
696.