DUAVIT vs CA
G.R No. 82318, May 18, 1989
SUMMARY: Owner of a vehicle is not liable for an accident involving the vehicle if driven without the owner’s consent
by one not employed by him. The Court cannot blindly apply absolute rules based on precedents whose facts do not
jibe four square with pending cases. Every case must be determined on its own peculiar factual circumstances.
Where, as in this case, the records of the petition fail to indicate the slightest indicia of an employer-employee
relationship between the owner and the erring driver or any consent given by the owner for the vehicle’s use, we
cannot hold the owner liable.
FACTS:
Plaintiffs Sarmiento, Sr. and Virgilio Catuar were aboard a jeep, owned by plaintiff Ruperto Catuar, when it was
slowing down approaching Roosevel Ave. when suddenly another jeep driven by defendant Oscar Sabiniano bumped
the former’s jeep on the portion near the left rear wheel, as result jeep fell, skidded and its windshield was damged.
Virgilio broke his wrist and sustained contusions on the head and Sarmiento’s legs were likewise fractured.
Plaintiff filed this case against Sabiniano as driver and against Duavit as owner of the jeep. Duavit admitted
ownership of the jeep but denied that Sabiniano was his employee. Sabiniano himself admitted that he took Duavit’s
jeep from the garage without consent or authority of the owner. He testified further that Duavit even filed charges
against him for theft of the jeep, but which Duavit did not push through as the parents of Sabiniano apologized to
Duavit on his behalf.
Trial Court found Sabiniano negligent in driving the vehicle but absolved Duavit on the ground that there was no
employer-employee relationship between them, and that former took the vehicle without consent or authority of the
latter.Petitioner was absolved from liability under Art. 2180 of Civil Code.
CA held petitioner jointly and severally liable with Sabiniano. Invoke Vargas v. Langcay, where it was held that it is
immaterial won driver was actually employed by registered owner.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the owner of a private vehicle which was involved in an accident can be held liable under Art. 2180
when the said vehicle was neither driven by an employee of the owner nor taken with the consent of the latter
HELD:
NO. In Duquillo v Bayot (1939), SC 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 knowledge and by a person not employed by him. This ruling is
still relevant and applicable, and hence, must be upheld.
CA’s reliance on the cases of Erezo v Jepte and Vargas v Langcay is misplaced and cannot be sustained. In Erezo v
Jepte case, defendant Jepte was held liable for the death of Erezo even if he was not really the owner of the truck
that killed the latter because he represented himself as its owner to the Motor Vehicles Office and had it registered
under his name; he was thus estopped from later on denying such representation. In Vargas, Vargas sold her
jeepney to a 3rd person, but she did not surrender to the Motor VehiclesOffice the corresponding AC plates. So when
the jeepney later on figured in an accident, she was held liable by the court. Holding that the operator of record
continues to be the operator of vehicle incontemplation of law, as regards the public and 3rd persons.
The circumstances of the above cases are entirely different from those in the present case. Hereinpetitioner does not
deny ownership of vehicle but denies having employed or authorized the driver Sabiniano. The jeep was virtually
stolen from the petitioner’s garage.
Decision and resolution appealed from was annulled and set aside.
