Maitim Vs Aguila, G.R. No.

218344, March 21, 2022 incident, and thus, Maitim should not be made
liable for vicarious liability because she exercised
Hernando, J: due diligence in the selection and supervision of
her employee.
Facts:
Petitioner Jessica Maitim and respondent Maria RTC rendered judgment in favor of Aguila. CA
Theresa P. Aguila were residents of Grand Pacific denied Maitim's appeal and affirmed the RTC
Manor Townhouse. Their respective townhouse decision in toto.
units are approximately nine meters apart,
separated only by a driveway jointly used by the Issue:
townhouse unit owners. 1. Whether Maitim is solidarily liable under the
doctrine of vicarious liability.
On April 25, 2006, Maitim was on board her 2. Whether there was contributory negligence on
vehicle, a Ford W-150 Chateau Wagon registered the part of Aguila.
under her name, which was being driven by
Restituto Santos, her driver for 12 years. While Ruling:
they were driving along the common driveway, 1. Yes. First, the RTC correctly applied the doctrine
Angela, the six-year old daughter of Aguila, was of res ipsa loquitur when it ruled that Santos
sideswiped by Maitim's vehicle. Angela was should be presumed negligent, and thus, had
dragged for about three meters resulting to her the burden of proving such presumption
right leg being fractured. otherwise.

Maitim and Santos did not immediately take In UPCB General Insurance Co. Vs Pascual
Angela to the hospital after the incident; she was Liner, Inc., this Court reiterated the
only brought to St. Luke's Medical Center after the applicability of res ipsa loquitur in vehicular
insistence of Angela's grandmother, Lirio Aguila. accidents, wherein it is sufficient that the
Angela was diagnosed to have suffered swelling, accident itself be established, and once
hematoma, multiple abrasions, and displaced, established through the admission of
complete fracture on the right leg. Thus, she evidence, whether hearsay or not, the rule on
underwent operation at Asian Hospital and was in res ipsa loquitur already starts to apply.
a wheelchair from April 25, 2006 to July 18, 2006.
As applied in the instant case, the fact that
The incident was referred to the barangay for Angela was hit by a moving vehicle owned by
conciliation but only Aguila appeared. At this point, Maitim and driven by Santos is undisputed,
Aguila's actual expenses amounted to P169,187.32. and the same is supported by the Traffic
Aguila then sent demand letters to Maitim and Accident Investigation Report dated April 25,
Santos to no avail. Thus, Aguila filed the instant 2006. The fact that Angela sustained injuries in
action for damages based on quasi-delict before her collision with Maitim's vehicle is also not in
the RTC. question. Thus, since it is clearly established
that there was a vehicular accident that
In her defense, Maitim denied Aguila's accusations caused injuries, then the rule on res ipsa
and claimed that on, while she was in her vehicle loquitur shall apply. An inference of negligence
being driven slowly by Santos, Angela suddenly on the part of Santos, the person who controls
came running and due to this, the latter's right leg the instrumentality (vehicle) causing the
was sideswiped and got fractured. Maitim alleged injury, arises, and he has the burden of
that her vehicle was covered by a comprehensive presenting proof to the contrary.
insurance that included third-party liability, but she
was not able to file for insurance claim due to As will be discussed below, this Court finds
Aguila's refusal to submit the necessary that the lower courts justly held that Santos
documents, i.e., police report, medical report, and failed to discharge this burden and
receipts of actual expenses. Furthermore, Maitim consequently, the presumption of negligence
maintained that Santos, who was her driver for 12 lodged towards him shall stand.
years, was driving with care at the time of the

Maitim Vs Aguila, G.R. No. 218344, March 21, 2022 1

Ordinarily, driving inside a relatively narrow deemed conclusive.
driveway shared by two houses would not
result to children being hit and their bones Maitim failed to prove that she was not vicariously
fractured. This is because a reasonably liable in this case.
prudent man, especially an alleged
experienced driver, would have foreseen that In relation to Article 2176, Article 2180 of the
the residents of the houses may exit towards Civil Code provides the basis for the concept of
the common driveway anytime, including vicarious liability in our jurisdiction:
young and playful children who may suddenly
run across or along said driveway. Thus, a Article 2180. The obligation imposed by
reasonably prudent man is expected to drive article 2176 is demandable not only for
with utmost caution when traversing the said one's own acts or omissions, but also for
driveway, even if given a "clear" signal by a those of persons for whom one is
guard. responsible.

In fact, Maitim herself admits that there is a Employers shall be liable for the damages
natural tendency to drive at a slow speed caused by their employees and household
when in a narrow driveway. However, her helpers acting within the scope of their
allegation that Santos was driving at a slow assigned tasks, even though the former
speed, which is admittedly "natural," are not engaged in any business or
contradicts the circumstances surrounding industry.
Angela's injury. If Santos truly drove slowly
and with care, he should have been able to Jurisprudence has established that under
have ample opportunity to brake or otherwise Article 2180, "when an injury is caused by the
steer the vehicle out of trouble, both of which negligence of the employee, there instantly
did not happen in this case. arises a presumption of law that there was
negligence on the part of the master or
Moreover, even if a running child were to get employer either in the selection of the servant
hit by a slow-moving vehicle, it is highly or employee, or in supervision over him after
unlikely that the same would result to injuries selection or both." "The liability of the
so severe that it required surgery and employer under Article 2180 is direct and
afterwards being confined to a wheelchair for immediate; it is not conditioned upon prior
more than two months. recourse against the negligent employee and a
prior showing of the insolvency of such
In sum, there is nothing natural about a child employee."
getting dragged for three meters and her leg
being completely fractured by a slow-moving Applying these concepts to the present case,
vehicle, especially if a reasonably prudent man the finding of negligence against Santos gave
was driving the vehicle with care. Thus, both rise to the presumption of negligence on the
the RTC and CA were right in finding part of Maitim in the latter's selection and/or
negligence on the part of Santos. supervision of the former. Therefore, it is
incumbent upon Maitim to prove that she
Furthermore, the presumption of negligence exercised the diligence of a good father of a
on the part of Santos was not overcome by family in the selection and supervision of her
Maitim, who presented no rebuttal evidence employee, Santos.
and instead merely alleged that Santos was
driving with due care and was not speeding. In her petition, Maitim stubbornly insists that
This Court has repeatedly emphasized that she cannot be held vicariously liable because
allegations, on their own, have no probative she alleges that Santos has an unblemished
value and cannot be considered as proof. 12-year driving record, and that before Santos
Therefore, since Maitim failed to present any was hired, he was required to submit a police
evidence to the contrary, the presumption of clearance and an NBI clearance. However, she
negligence on the part of Santos stands and is presented no evidence to corroborate or

Maitim Vs Aguila, G.R. No. 218344, March 21, 2022 2

support her bare, self-serving allegations. This employees but also in the actual supervision of
Court has constantly held that bare allegations their work. The mere allegation of the
cannot be considered as proof, especially existence of hiring procedures and supervisory
when, such as in this case, the records are policies, without anything more, is decidedly
barren of any evidence that would support not sufficient to overcome such presumption.
such allegations.
Given the above, Maitim's attempt to deflect
The quantum of proof in cases involving liability clearly falls short as she was not able
vicarious liability has been established by to present concrete proof that she exercised
jurisprudence. the care and diligence of a good father of a
family in the selection and supervision of her
In the selection of prospective employees, employee, Santos. Therefore, the presumption
employers are required to examine them as to of negligence against her stands, and she must
their qualifications, experience and service be held solidarily liable with Santos.
records. In the supervision of employees, the
employer must formulate standard operating 2. No. There was no contributory negligence on
procedures, monitor their implementation and the part of Aguila.
impose disciplinary measures for the breach The driveway was a common area to both
thereof. To fend off vicarious liability, parties' townhouse units, which meant that
employers must submit concrete proof, the driveway is as much a part of Aguila's
including documentary evidence, that they residence as it is of Maitim's. It was also found
complied with everything that was incumbent that Angela was not just running or loitering
on them. around but was actually on her way to board
their car. Given these circumstances, this
Due diligence in the supervision of employees Court sees no negligence on the part of Aguila
on the other hand, includes the formulation of when she allowed Angela to exit their door
suitable rules and regulations for the guidance and walk towards their garage. There is a
of employees and the issuance of proper reasonable expectation of safety, considering
instructions intended for the protection of the that the driveway is still within the premises of
public and persons with whom the employer their residence and not on the street where
has relations through his or its employees and vehicles ordinarily drive by. Moreover, given the
the imposition of necessary disciplinary location and relatively narrow profile of the
measures upon employees in case of breach or driveway, it can be reasonably expected that
as may be warranted to ensure the anyone who traverses such driveway with a
performance of acts indispensable to the motor vehicle would drive slowly and with
business of and beneficial to their employer. utmost caution.
To this, we add that actual implementation
and monitoring of consistent compliance with Therefore, there being no contributory
said rules should be the constant concern of negligence on the part of Angela and Aguila,
the employer, acting through dependable and with Maitim and Santos being unable to
supervisors who should regularly report on rebut the presumption of negligence lodged
their supervisory functions. towards them in their respective capacities,
this Court sees no reason to depart from the
In order that the defense of due diligence in findings of the lower courts finding Maitim
the selection and supervision of employees solidarily liable with Santos.
may be deemed sufficient and plausible, it is
not enough to emptily invoke the existence of
said company guidelines and policies on hiring
and supervision. As the negligence of the
employee gives rise to the presumption of
negligence on the part of the employer, the
latter has the burden of proving that it has
been diligent not only in the selection of

Maitim Vs Aguila, G.R. No. 218344, March 21, 2022 3