G.R. No. L-9147 - Campo vs. Camarote

Plaintiffs: Rafaela Campo, Ernesto Giluano, Remedios Giluano, Rosalina Giluano, and Felix Giluano (or their heirs).
Defendants: Juan Camarote (registered owner of the jeep) and Gregorio Gemilga (driver and licensed professional with driver’s license No. 77675).
The action was instituted before Gemilga’s plea of guilty in a pending criminal information related to the accident.

On August 30, 1953, while Gemilga was driving the jeep along the road in Davao, the vehicle collided with the rear of another vehicle, in which two passengers had just boarded.
As a consequence of the impact, Felix Giluano sustained severe physical injuries and later died.
A criminal information against Gemilga was filed on October 26, 1953.
The criminal trial was scheduled for December 11, 1953; however, on December 5, 1953, Gemilga pleaded guilty to the information and was sentenced to imprisonment and an indemnity of P3,000.
Notably, no execution of the indemnity was requested or issued in the criminal case.

Before Gemilga’s plea of guilty, on October 19, 1953, the heirs of the deceased Giluano instituted the civil action in the Court of First Instance of Davao against both defendants for damages.
The case was brought forth on the basis of a stipulation of facts which included, inter alia, the negligence or lack of due diligence on the part of the owner in the employment of the driver.
The judgment rendered ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs P6,000 as damages and an additional P500 as attorney’s fee.

Argued that his liability as the owner of the jeep was only subsidiary.
Asserted that he was not negligent since he was not present in the vehicle at the time of the accident and had employed a licensed, competent professional driver.
Claimed that the possession of a professional driver’s license by Gemilga should be considered sufficient diligence akin to that of a good father of a family.

The action was grounded on the negligence or lack of due care, particularly the failure to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the employment of a driver, as alleged in the complaint.
Article 2180 of the Civil Code of the Philippines was cited, which imposes liability on persons for the acts or omissions of those for whom they are responsible, including employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their tasks, unless they prove they observed due diligence.
A comparison was made with the provisions of the Civil Code of Spain (Articles 1903 to 1910), noting that the Philippine Civil Code’s provision is broader by including owners of vehicles even if they were not in the vehicle at the time of the accident.

Whether the owner of a vehicle, namely Juan Camarote, may be held liable for the negligence of his employee (driver) under Article 2180 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

Does the law impose strict liability on the vehicle owner for acts committed by the driver during the course of employment?
Is the mere possession of a professional driver’s license sufficient to discharge the burden of proving that the diligence of a good father of a family was observed?

The extent of the owner’s duty in the selection and supervision of the driver.

Whether the owner is required to thoroughly examine the qualifications, experience, and service record of the applicant for employment beyond merely verifying the possession of a license.
Whether failure to perform adequate vetting constitutes negligence on the part of the owner.

Once a negligent act by the driver is proven, does the law shift the burden to the owner to demonstrate that all due diligence was exercised?
How does the principle of presumed negligence apply in accidents caused by the driver?