NPC vs. CA doer-employee and his employer.

Hence, the reliance on the

Persons Vicariously Liable|1998|Romero, J. implementing rule on labor to disregard the primary liability of an
Nature of Case: Appeal employer under Article 2180 of the Civil Code is misplaced. An
Digest Maker: Dungo implementing rule on labor cannot be used by an employer as a
shield to avoid liability under the substantive provisions of the
SUMMARY: Truck owned by NPC collided with a car and killed three people, and
Civil Code.
injured 7. PHESCO is the contractor which hired Ilumba, the driver. The Court found
 Cuison v. Norton & Harrison Co
that PHESCO was engaged in Labor-Only contracting and NPC was for all intents
o It is well to repeat that under the civil law an employer is only
and purpsoes the employer of Ilumba.
liable for the negligence of his employees in the discharge of their
respective duties. The defense of independent contractor would be
DOCTRINE: Article 2180 of the Civil Code and not the Labor Code will determine
a valid one in the Philippines just as it would be in the United
the liability of NPC in a civil suit for damages instituted by an injured person for
States.
any negligent act of the employees of the "labor only" contractor. This is consistent
 Article 2180 of the Civil Code and not the Labor Code will determine the
with the ruling that a finding that a contractor was a "labor-only" contractor is
liability of NPC in a civil suit for damages instituted by an injured person for
equivalent to a finding that an employer-employee relationship existed between
any negligent act of the employees of the "labor only" contractor. This is
the owner (principal contractor) and the "labor-only" contractor, including the
consistent with the ruling that a finding that a contractor was a "labor-only"
latter's workers..
contractor is equivalent to a finding that an employer-employee relationship
existed between the owner (principal contractor) and the "labor-only"
contractor, including the latter's workers.
Facts:  With respect to the liability of NPC as the direct employer, Article 2180 of
the Civil Code explicitly provides:
o Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
 On July 22, 1979, a convoy of four (4) dump trucks of NPC was en route to
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their
Iligan. One of the trucks driven by Ilumba had a head on collision with a
assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any
Toyota Tamaraw and resulted in the death of 3 persons in the Toyota
business or industry.
Tamaraw and 7 other passengers.
 In this regard, NPC's liability is direct, primary and solidary with PHESCO
 Heirs of the victims filed a complaint for damages against National Power
and the driver. Of course, NPC, if the judgment for damages is satisfied by
Corporation (NPC) and PHESCO Incorporated (PHESCO).
it, shall have recourse against PHESCO and the driver who committed the
o PHESCO: it is not the owner of the dump truck which collided with
negligence which gave rise to the action.
the Toyota Tamaraw but NPC but merely a contractor of NPC with
 Even if NPC truly believed that it was not the employer of the driver, could
the main duty of supplying workers and technicians for the latter's
still have disclaimed any liability had it raised the defense of due diligence
projects.
in the selection or supervision of PHESCO and Ilumba. However, for some
o NPC denied any liability and countered that the driver of the dump
reason or another, NPC did not invoke said defense. Hence, by opting not to
truck was the employee of PHESCO.
present any evidence that it exercised due diligence in the supervision of the
 RTC found PHESCO, Inc. and Ilumba liable.
activities of PHESCO and Ilumba, NPC has foreclosed its right to interpose
 CA reversed, found that PHESCO was engaged in labor only contracting
the same on appeal in conformity with the rule that points of law, theories,
and effectively, NPC was the employer of Ilumba.
issues of facts and arguments not raised in the proceedings below cannot be
ventilated for the first time on appeal.
Issue #1: WON NPC is liable? – YES
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the assailed decision of the Court of
 The action was premised on the recovery of damages as a result of quasi- Appeals dated November 10, 1994 and its accompanying resolution dated
delict against both NPC and PHESCO, hence, it is the Civil Code and not the February 9, 1995 are AFFIRMED without prejudice to the right of NPC to
Labor Code which is the applicable law in resolving this case. demand from PHESCO and Ilumba reimbursement of the damages it would
 Filamer Christian Institute v. IAC: be adjudged to pay to complainants. No costs.
o The present case does not deal with a labor dispute on conditions
of employment between an alleged employee and an alleged
SO ORDERED.
employer. It invokes a claim brought by one for damages for injury
caused by the patently negligent acts of a person, against both