G.R. No. 173870 - Del Carmen, Jr. vs. Bacoy

On January 1, 1993, Emilia Bacoy Monsalud, her husband Leonardo Monsalud, Sr., and their daughter Glenda Monsalud were struck and killed by a Fuso passenger jeep in Poblacion, Sominot, Zamboanga del Sur.
The jeep bearing plate number UV-PEK-600 was registered under petitioner Oscar del Carmen, Jr. (Oscar Jr.) and used as a public utility vehicle on the Molave-Sominot route.
Allan Maglasang (Allan) was driving the jeep at the time of the accident.

Allan was charged with Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Multiple Homicide before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur.
On March 13, 1997, the RTC found Allan guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed an indeterminate sentence of 1 year and 1 day to 6 years of prision correccional.

Emilia’s father, Geronimo Bacoy (Geronimo), representing the six minor children of the Monsalud family, filed Civil Case No. 96-20219 against Allan, the spouses Oscar del Carmen, Sr. and Norma del Carmen (Oscar Sr. and Norma), and their son Oscar Jr. as registered owner.
Geronimo sought reimbursement of funeral and burial expenses, attorney’s fees, moral and exemplary damages, and compensation for loss of net income due to Emilia’s death.
The spouses del Carmen denied ownership of the jeep and employer-employee relationship with Allan.
Oscar Jr. claimed that Allan and his friends took his jeep without his consent, alleging the vehicle was stolen ("car-napped") for a joyride.
Evidence showed the jeep could be started by pushing it without the ignition key and operated without headlights.

Oscar Jr. asserted that Allan was employed as a conductor but his employment was terminated before the accident (served only until December 14, 1992).
Oscar Jr. presented witnesses Faustino Sismundo and Cresencio Baobao who testified that Cresencio was the conductor from mid-December 1992 to January 1, 1993, and that Rodrigo Maglasang (Allan’s brother) was the driver.
Geronimo presented witnesses Saturnino Jumawan and Jose Navarro who testified that Allan was still the conductor during mid-December 1992 until the accident date.
The jeep was usually parked beside Rodrigo’s rented house where it was vulnerable due to lack of security and ease of being started without a key.

The RTC acquitted spouses del Carmen for insufficiency of evidence but held Oscar Jr. subsidiarily liable based on res ipsa loquitur.
It reasoned that Oscar Jr., as owner, controlled the vehicle through Rodrigo and failed to take precaution against unauthorized use.
Damages awarded included funeral expenses, moral damages for the deaths, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.

Oscar Jr. argued the employer-employee relationship was absent and Allan acted beyond his assigned duties (as a conductor, not a driver).
Claimed the jeep was stolen and Allan drove it without permission.
RTC granted reconsideration and absolved Oscar Jr. from civil liability on June 21, 2000, holding Allan solely liable.
The court ruled that vicarious liability requires employment within the scope of assigned tasks and that res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable because the vehicle’s owner cannot be liable for damages caused by the criminal acts of others.

The CA reversed the RTC’s reconsideration order, holding that Allan was still employed by Oscar Jr. at the time of the accident.
The CA favored testimonies supporting Allan’s continued employment and found Oscar Jr.’s witnesses unreliable.
Using the doctrine of the registered owner’s primary liability, it held Oscar Jr. and Allan jointly and severally liable for damages.
The CA disbelieved the claim that the jeep was stolen, citing the dismissal of the carnapping case and implied consent by Oscar Jr. due to his failure to properly secure the vehicle or instruct his driver.
Awards included civil indemnity, temperate and moral damages, and exemplary damages.

Oscar Jr. filed a petition arguing the CA erred by relying on mere speculation and ignoring the scope of employment requirement under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
He reiterated the jeep was stolen and that res ipsa loquitur and owner’s liability doctrines should not apply due to unauthorized use.

Whether the registered owner, Oscar del Carmen, Jr., is civilly liable for damages caused by the jeep operated by his employee Allan Maglasang.
Whether Allan was an employee of Oscar Jr. at the time of the accident, and if so, whether he acted within the scope of his employment when operating the vehicle.
Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to the accident.
Whether the defense of unauthorized use (i.e., theft or "carnapping") by Allan and his companions releases Oscar Jr. from liability.
Whether the Court of Appeals and RTC committed reversible errors in their findings and assessment of evidence.