G.R. No. 132266 - Castilex Industrial Corp. vs. Vasquez, Jr.

On August 28, 1988, at around 1:30 to 2:00 a.m., Romeo So Vasquez was driving a Honda motorcycle near Fuente Osmeña Rotunda without protective gear and with only a student permit.
Jose Benjamin Abad, the manager of Castilex Industrial Corporation (registered owner of a Toyota Hi-Lux pick-up), was driving the company vehicle.
Abad made a shortcut driving against the flow of traffic in the rotunda, resulting in a collision with Vasquez’s motorcycle, causing severe injuries.
Abad brought Vasquez first to Southern Islands Hospital and then to Cebu Doctors’ Hospital where Vasquez later died on September 5, 1988.

Abad acknowledged responsibility for hospital bills by signing an acknowledgment at the hospital.
A criminal case was filed against Abad but later dismissed due to failure to prosecute.
Vicente Vasquez Jr. and Luisa So Vasquez, parents of the deceased, filed an action for damages against Abad and Castilex Industrial Corporation.
Cebu Doctors’ Hospital intervened to collect unpaid medical expenses.

The trial court ruled in favor of the Vasquez spouses and Cebu Doctors’ Hospital, ordering Abad and Castilex to pay damages jointly and solidarily including burial expenses, moral damages, loss of earning capacity, attorney’s fees, and hospital bills.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals held Abad and Castilex liable but ruled Castilex’s liability was vicarious, not solidary, and reduced some awards.
On motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals further modified awards and deleted the attorney’s fees.

Castilex contended the Court of Appeals erred in applying the fifth paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code instead of the fourth paragraph.
Castilex argued that Abad, as a managerial employee, was presumed acting within scope of duties even outside office hours when using a company vehicle.
Castilex challenged burden of proof allocation held by the Court of Appeals.
Private respondents argued Abad’s negligence was established, and Castilex was liable vicariously.
Issues regarding procedural lapses in the petition were raised by respondents.

Whether Castilex Industrial Corporation can be held vicariously liable for the death resulting from the negligent operation of a company-issued vehicle by its managerial employee.
Which paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code applies—the fourth paragraph or the fifth paragraph—in determining employer liability.
Whether the employee, Abad, was acting within the scope of his assigned tasks at the time of the accident.
The correct allocation of burden of proof regarding whether Abad was acting within the scope of his employment.
Procedural sufficiency and compliance of the petition filed by Castilex.