Jayme vs.
Apostol; Torts & Damages- Vicarious Liability of
Employers
7/15/2013
0 Comments
G.R. No. 163609 November 27, 2008
Facts:
Mayor Miguel of Koronadal, South Cotabato was on board the Isuzu pick-up truck driven by Fidel Lozano,
an employee of the Municipality of Koronadal. The pick-up truck was registered under the name of Rodrigo
Apostol, but it was then in the possession of Ernesto Simbulan. Lozano borrowed the pick-up truck from
Simbulan to bring Miguel to Buayan Airport at General Santos City to catch his Manila flight.
The pick-up truck accidentally hit Marvin C. Jayme, a minor, who was then crossing the National Highway
in Poblacion, Polomolok, South Cotabato. The intensity of the collision sent Marvin some fifty (50) meters
away from the point of impact, a clear indication that Lozano was driving at a very high speed at the time
of the accident. The victim was brought to the hospital, but despite medical intervention he did not
survived.
Petitioners spouses Buenaventura and Rosario Jayme, the parents of Marvin, filed a complaint for damages
with the RTC against respondents Apostol [registred owner of the vehicle], Simbulan [possessor of the
car], Lozano [driver], Miguel [passenger], Municipality of Koronadal [employer Lozano].
The RTC rendered a decision absolving defendant Municipality of Koronadal being an agency of the State
performing governmental functions. The same with defendant Simbulan, not being the owner of the subject
vehicle, he is absolved of any liability. However, defendants Lozano, Apostol, and Mayor Miguel of
Koronadal, South Cotabato, are hereby ordered jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff.
The CA affirmed the decision, absolve Mayor Miguel of liability.
Issue:
Whether or not Mayor Miguel is solidarily liable with Lozano.
Held:
For the determination of the liability of Miguel, it must be established that he is the employer of Lozano.
Per Article 2180 of the Civil Code -a person is not only liable for one's own quasi-delictual acts, but also
for those persons for whom one is responsible for. This liability is popularly known as vicarious or imputed
liability. To sustain claims against employers for the acts of their employees, the following requisites must
be established: (1) That the employee was chosen by the employer personally or through another; (2) That
the service to be rendered in accordance with orders which the employer has the authority to give at all
times; and (3) That the illicit act of the employee was on the occasion or by reason of the functions entrusted
to him.
Significantly, to make the employee liable under paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 2180, it must be established
that the injurious or tortuous act was committed at the time the employee was performing his functions.
Furthermore, the employer-employee relationship cannot be assumed. It is incumbent upon the plaintiff to
prove the relationship by preponderant evidence. In resolving the present controversy, it is imperative to
find out if Mayor Miguel is, indeed, the employer of Lozano and therefore liable for the negligent acts of
the latter. To determine the existence of an employment relationship, We rely on the four-fold test. This
involves: (1) the employer's power of selection; (2) payment of wages or other remuneration; (3) the
employer's right to control the method of doing the work; and (4) the employer's right of suspension or
dismissal.
Applying the foregoing test, the CA correctly held that it was the Municipality of Koronadal which was
the lawful employer of Lozano at the time of the accident. It is uncontested that Lozano was employed as
a driver by the municipality. That he was subsequently assigned to Mayor Miguel during the time of the
accident is of no moment. This Court has, on several occasions, held that an employer-employee
relationship still exists even if the employee was loaned by the employer to another person or entity because
control over the employee subsists. In the case under review, the Municipality of Koronadal remains to be
Lozano's employer notwithstanding Lozano's assignment to Mayor Miguel.
As to the contention that Miguel has the control over Lozano when the accident happen- the same
has no leg to stand on and must necessarily fail. No negligence, said the Court, may be imputed against
a fellow employee [Miguel as mayor of Koronadal] although the person may have the right to control the
manner of the vehicle's operation. In the absence of an employer-employee relationship establishing
vicarious liability, the driver's negligence should not be attributed to a fellow employee who only happens
to be an occupant of the vehicle. Whatever right of control the occupant may have over the driver is not
sufficient by itself to justify an application of the doctrine of vicarious liability.
In the case at bar, Mayor Miguel was neither Lozano's employer nor the vehicle's registered owner. There
existed no causal relationship between him and Lozano or the vehicle used that will make him accountable
for Marvin's death. Mayor Miguel was a mere passenger at the time of the accident.
Parenthetically, it has been held that the failure of a passenger to assist the driver, by providing him
warnings or by serving as lookout does not make the passenger liable for the latter's negligent acts. The
driver's duty is not one that may be delegated to others.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.
POWERED BY Create your own unique website with customizable
templates.GET STARTED
