Mendoza v. Gomez| G.R No. 160110| June 18, 2014 |Perez, J.
Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA.
Petitioners: Mariano Mendoza; Elvira Lim
Respondents: Sps. Leonora and Gabriel Gomez
TOPIC Torts > Persons Liable > Vicarious Liability > Employers
SUMMARY Petitioner Lim’s bus hit Respondent Spouses’ truck after the former’s driver encroached upon the lane of
the latter. The RTC and CA held Petitioner Mendoza (bus driver) and Petitioner Lim (bus’ registered owner) to be
both liable to Respondents. The SC affirmed. Petitioner Mendoza (driver) is liable because it was his personal acts,
constituting negligence, which was the proximate legal cause of the injury. Petitioner Lim (registered owner) is liable
as presumed employer of Mendoza. His liability is based on the doctrine of vicarious liability or imputed negligence.
A person who has not committed the act or omission which caused damage or injury to another may nevertheless
be held civilly liable to the latter either directly or subsidiarily under certain circumstances. The basis for damages
is the direct and primary negligence of the employer in the selection or supervision, or both, of his employee.
Under the Motor Vehicle Registration Law, the registered owner of the vehicle is the presumed employer of the
negligent driver, and the defense of diligence is not available to him, therefore he is ALWAYS liable to the injured
third party. His recourse is to recover from the actual owner or the actual employer.
FACTS
Mar 7, 1997: collision between an Isuzu elf truck and a Mayamy Transportation bus
o Truck: owned by Leonora Gomez (Respondent) and driven by Antenojenes Perez
o Bus: registered under Elvira Lim and driven by Mariano Mendoza (Petitioners)
o The truck was topped when its front portion was hit by the bus, after the bus intruded on the lane
occupied by the truck. Bus driver tried to escape but was apprehended.
o Perez and 3 helpers (Melchor Anla, Romeo Banca, and Jimmy Repisada) sustained injuries
necessitating medical treatment, which amount was shouldered by Respondent Spouses. Truck
sustained extensive damages.
Information for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and multiple physical injuries filed
against Mendoza he eluded arrest separate complaint for damages against Petitioners (present case)
Respondent Spouses: the mishap deprived them of daily income (P1k) since the truck was vital in the
furtherance of their business.
Petitioner Lim: although she is the registered owner, the actual owner of the bus is Cirilo Enriquez, who had
attached the bus with Mayamy Transportation Company under the kabit system.
o Teresita Gutierrez: she is the owner of the business name “Mayamy Bus” or “Mayamy Transport”
Both RTC and CA ruled in favor of Respondent Spouses, following the established principle in transportation
law, holding Mendoza and Lim liable.
Respondent Spouses anchor their claim for damages against Petitioners on 2 separate provisions of the Civil
Code:
o Mendoza: Article 2176: one who causes damage to another thru fault or negligence makes one liable
o Lim: Article 2180: employers shall be liable for damages caused by their employees
ISSUE: [jump to Issue #2]
1) WON Mendoza’s negligence was duly proven? – YES
Article 2185: unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle
has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.
Mendoza encroached upon the lane rightfully occupied by the truck he was violating traffic
regulation he is presumed negligent he failed to overturn the presumption
It was Mendoza’s negligence that was the proximate legal cause of the injury sustained by Respondent
Spouses.
2) Who may be held liable? Mendoza and his employer
Mendoza is liable because it was his personal acts and omissions (negligence) which caused the damage.
Mendoza’s employer is liable under the doctrine of vicarious liability or imputed negligence.
A person who has not committed the act or omission which caused damage or injury to
another may nevertheless be held civilly liable to the latter either directly or subsidiarily under
certain circumstances.
The basis for damages is the direct and primary negligence of the employer in the selection or
supervision, or both, of his employee.
3) Who is deemed as Mendoza’s employer? Lim, the registered owner
The registered owner of a vehicle is deemed the employer of the negligent driver insofar as third
persons are concerned therefore, vicariously liable
Actual employer is deemed merely an agent of the registered owner of the vehicle.
Question of existence of employer-employee relationship between the registered owner and the
driver is irrelevant.
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 (culpa in eligiendo) or in the supervision over him after the
selection (culpa vigilando), or both. The presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure;
consequently, it may be rebutted.
General rules: the presumption is overturned if the employer shows that he has exercised the
care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee
therefore, relieved of liability
Exception: Motor Vehicle Registration Law: defense of diligence not available for registered
owners of vehicles registered owner is ALWAYS liable
o But the law doesn’t leave the registered owner without recourse. He can come after the
actual owner or the employer, and the employer can come after the employee.
o Rationale for the Law: avoid a circumstance when the violator of the law escapes liability
because of a lack of a means to discover him, which is inconvenient and prejudicial to
the public.
Other issues: award of damages
Actual or compensatory damages: YES, but only those proved by evidence
Exemplary damages: YES; driver was grossly negligent
Attorney’s fees: NO; the RTC failed to substantiate said award
Costs of suit: YES; the rules allow them for the prevailing party
Interests: YES; delay in paying for past losses which can be reasonably ascertained should be compensated
DISPOSITION: Affirmed (grant is only in connection with amount of award of damages)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court Resolves to PARTIALLY GRANT the appeal by certiorari, as follows:
1) DECLARE Mariano Mendoza and Elvira Lim solidarily liable to respondent Spouses Leonora and Gabriel Gomez;
2) MAINTAIN the award of actual or compensatory damages in the amount of P142,757.40 for the repair of the Isuzu
Elf truck, with legal interest beginning 31 January 2001 until fully paid;
3) GRANT additional actual or compensatory damages in the amount of P11,267.35 for the medical expenses
shouldered by respondent Spouses Leonora and Gabriel Gomez, with legal interest beginning 31 January 2001 until
fully paid;
4) DELETE the award of moral damages;
5) MAINTAIN the award of exemplary damages at P50,000.00;
6) DELETE the award of attorney’s fees; and
7) MAINTAIN the award of costs of suit.
NOTES:
Article 2176. 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 preexisting contractual relation between the
parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
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. x x x x 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 of industry.
