World

DUAVIT VS CA (6)

Home /  Documents /  duavit vs ca (6)

Published on View Download

DUAVIT v COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:

 The jeep being driven by defendant Sabiniano collided with another jeep, which had
then 2 passengers on it. As a result of the collision the passengers of the other jeep
suered injury and the automobile itself had to be repaired because of the
extensive damage.

A case was led against Sabiniano as driver and against !uavit as owner of 
the jeep. !uavit admitted ownership of the jeep but denied that Sabiniano was his
employee. Sabiniano himself admitted that he too" !uavit#s jeep from the garage
without consent or authority of the owner. $e testied further that !uavit even led
charges against him for theft of the jeep, but which !uavit did not push through as
the parents of Sabiniano apologi%ed to !uavit on his behalf.

 Trial &ourt found Sabiniano negligent in driving the vehicle but absolved !uavit on
the ground that there was no employer'employee relationship between them, and
that former too" the vehicle without consent or authority of the latter.

&A held the two of them jointly and severally liable.

ISSUE(
)on the owner of a private vehicle which gured in an accident can be held liable
under Article2*+ of the && when the said vehicle was neither driven by an
employee of the owner nor ta"en with the consent of the latter.

ELD(
-

/n !u0uillo v 1ayot *3435, S& ruled that an owner of a vehicle cannot be held liable
for an accident involving a vehicle if the same was driven without his consent or
"nowledge and by a person not employed by him. This ruling is still relevant and
applicable, and hence, must be upheld.

&A#s reliance on the cases of 6re%o v 7epte and 8argas v 9angcay is misplaced and
cannot be sustained. /n 6re%o v 7epte case, defendant 7epte was held liable for the
death of 6re%o even if he was not really the owner of the truc" that "illed the latter
because he represented himself as its owner to the :otor 8ehicles ;ce and had it
registered under his name< he was thus estopped from later on denying such
representation. /n 8argas, 8argas sold her jeepney to a 4rd person, but she did not
surrender to the :otor 8ehicles;ce the corresponding A& plates. So when the
 jeepney later on gured in an accident, she was held liable by the court. $olding
that the operator of record continues to be the operator of vehicle incontemplation
of law, as regards the public and 4rd persons.
 
 The circumstances of the above cases are entirely dierent from those in the
present case. $ereinpetitioner does not deny ownership of vehicle but denies

1 of 2
 Download Report

RECOMMENDED

HERMOSISIMA VS CA
DOCUMENTS

ALBENSON ENT. VS. CA

MIRPURI VS. CA
DOCUMENTS

CA VS BINAY- CONDONATION
DOCUMENTS

CLOMA VS. CA
DOCUMENTS

SESBRENO VS CA
DOCUMENTS

SANCHEZ VS. CA
DOCUMENTS

5. LAO VS CA
DOCUMENTS
 ADAMSON VS CA
DOCUMENTS

2. SESBREÑO VS. CA
DOCUMENTS

ACEBEDO VS. CA
DOCUMENTS

DAYRIT VS CA
DOCUMENTS

View More >

STARTUP - SHARE TO SUCCESS