Case Digest (G.R. No. 48176)
Facts:
Martin Diuquino v. J. Antonio Araneta, G.R. No. 48176, July 21, 1944, Supreme Court, Ozaeta, J., writing for the Court. The Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, with Yulo, C.J., Moran and Horrilleno, JJ., concurring; Justice Bocobo, with Justice Paras, dissented.Plaintiff-appellant Martin Diuquino sued defendant-appellee J. Antonio Araneta in the Court of First Instance of Manila alleging that Araneta employed one Pedro Estrada as chauffeur; on April 6, 1940 in Baguio Estrada, while driving Araneta's automobile No. 1-9940, negligently caused the vehicle to bump and hit plaintiff who was pouring water into his employer's car, breaking plaintiff's kneeball and rendering him hospitalized and permanently disabled. The complaint alleged that Araneta failed to exercise "all the diligence of a good father of a family" in selecting and supervising his chauffeur and therefore should be liable for P10,000 damages under Articles 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint on the ground that it stated no cause of action against Araneta. Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeal raised the substantive question whether an owner of a private automobile (not an owner/director of an establishment or enterprise) may be held liable under Article 1903 (in relation to Article 1902) for the negligent acts of his chauffeur; the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance err in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action?
- May the owner of a private automobile be held liable for the negligent acts of his chauffeur under Article 1903 of the Civil Code (in relation to Article 1902)?
- Alternatively, does liability arise against the owner under the provisions on damage cause...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)