[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
80 views1 page

LG Foods V Pagapong-Agraviador

The son of spouses Vallejera was hit by a van driven by an employee of LG Foods Corporation. The driver committed suicide before trial. Spouses Vallejera sued LG Foods for damages. LG Foods claimed the suit was based on subsidiary liability under the Penal Code, but the Court found the cause of action was based on negligence under the Civil Code, making LG Foods liable for damages caused by their employee.

Uploaded by

gel94
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
80 views1 page

LG Foods V Pagapong-Agraviador

The son of spouses Vallejera was hit by a van driven by an employee of LG Foods Corporation. The driver committed suicide before trial. Spouses Vallejera sued LG Foods for damages. LG Foods claimed the suit was based on subsidiary liability under the Penal Code, but the Court found the cause of action was based on negligence under the Civil Code, making LG Foods liable for damages caused by their employee.

Uploaded by

gel94
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

LG FOODS CORPORATION V PAGAPONG-AGRAVIADOR

FACTS: The son of spouses Vallejera was hit by a van owned by petitioners driven by their
employee, Yeneza. An Information for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide was filed
against the driver before the MTCC Bacolod City. Before the trial could be concluded, the driver
committed suicide. Hence, MTCC dismissed the criminal case.

Spouses Vallejera filed a complaint for damages against the petitioners as employers of the
deceased driver. Petitioners denied liability and filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the
complaint is basically a "claim for subsidiary liability against an employer" under the provision of
Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. RTC denied the motion to dismiss for lack of merit.
Petitioners then went on certiorari to the CA. CA denied the petition.

ISSUE: Whether the spouses Vallejera’s cause of action is founded on Art 103 of the Revised
Penal Code or derived from Art 2180 of the Civil Code.

HELD: Section 2, Rule 2, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure defines cause of action as the
"act or omission by which a party violates the right of another." Such act or omission gives rise
to an obligation which may come from law, contracts, quasi contracts, delicts or quasi-delicts.

It is worthy to note that the petitioners, in their Answer with Compulsory Counter-Claim,
repeatedly made mention of Article 2180 of the Civil Code and anchored their defense on their
allegation that "they had exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of [their]
employees." The Court views this defense as an admission that indeed the petitioners
acknowledged the private respondents' cause of action as one for quasi-delict under Article
2180 of the Civil Code.

All told, Civil Case No. 99-10845 is a negligence suit brought under Article 2176 - Civil Code to
recover damages primarily from the petitioners as employers responsible for their negligent
driver pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code. 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. Thus, the employer is liable for damages caused by his employees and
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former is not
engaged in any business or industry.

You might also like