Case Digest (G.R. No. L-30212)
Facts:
Bienvenido Gelisan v. Benito Alday, G.R. No. L-30212. September 30, 1987, the Supreme Court Second Division, Padilla, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner, Bienvenido Gelisan, was the registered owner of a freight truck (plate No. TH-2377). On January 31, 1962, Gelisan and Roberto Espiritu executed a written hire/lease contract under which Espiritu hired Gelisan’s truck to haul rice, sugar, flour and fertilizer at an agreed price, and expressly agreed to “bear and pay all losses and damages attending the carriage of the goods.” On February 1, 1962, Espiritu took the truck with his driver and helper.
The respondent, Benito Alday, a trucking operator engaged to haul Atlas Fertilizer Corporation’s goods from Pier 4 to Mandaluyong, engaged Espiritu at the pier to haul fertilizer at 9 centavos per bag. Espiritu made two trips of 200 sacks each, delivered way bills (Exhibits A and B) but did not deliver the fertilizer to the Atlas warehouse; the signatures on the way bills were not those of Atlas representatives. Alday reported the loss to the Manila Police; Espiritu was later arrested and booked for theft. The truck was located, impounded by police, and Gelisan claimed it and paid about P300 to a surety company for its release. Alday paid Atlas P5,397.33 for the missing 400 bags and on February 12, 1962 filed suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 49603) against Espiritu and Gelisan to recover damages.
At the Court of First Instance, Espiritu failed to answer and was defaulted; Gelisan denied liability, relying on the hire contract and asserting lack of privity with Alday and lack of knowledge of Espiritu’s misappropriation. The trial court found Espiritu solely liable and rendered judgment in favor of Alday against Espiritu for P6,000 with legal interest, dismissed the complaint as to Gelisan, and rendered judgment in favor of Gelisan against Alday for P350.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 32670-R, judgment dated October 11, 1968, as amended February 11, 1969) reversed the trial court as to Gelisan. Citing Montoya v. Ignacio, the Court of Appeals held that as the registered owner of a public service vehicle Gelisan remained liable because the lease to Espiritu had not been previously approved by the Public Service Commission and therefore was not binding on the public; it ordered Gelisan jointly and severally liable with Espiritu to pay Alday P5,397.30 with legal interest and costs,...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the registered owner of a public service vehicle (Bienvenido Gelisan) liable to a third party (Benito Alday) for losses caused by the lessee/driver (Roberto Espiritu) when the lease was not approved by the Public Service Commission?
- If the lease was not approved, does the unapproved lease nevertheless operate between the contracting parties, giving the owner a right to indemnity?
- Is the owner’s liability primary and joint and severa...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)