Case Digest (G.R. No. 205090)
Facts:
Greenstar Express, Inc. and Fruto L. Sayson, Jr., G.R. No. 205090, October 17, 2016, Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals’ September 26, 2012 Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 96961 affirming the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31’s April 4, 2011 Decision in Civil Case No. SPL-0969, and of the CA’s December 28, 2012 Resolution denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.On February 25, 2003 (a declared national holiday under Proclamation No. 331), a head-on collision occurred along Maharlika Highway, Alaminos, Laguna between a Greenstar passenger bus driven by petitioner Fruto L. Sayson, Jr. and a Mitsubishi L-300 van registered to Universal Robina Corporation (URC) and being driven Quezon-bound by Renante Bicomong, Operations Manager of respondent Nissin Universal Robina Corporation (NURC). Bicomong died at the scene. Petitioners (the bus owner and driver) filed suit on September 23, 2003 against NURC, later amending the complaint to implead URC, alleging negligence and seeking damages.
At trial before the RTC, petitioners presented eyewitness testimony principally from Sayson and other witnesses; respondents presented witnesses to show Bicomong was on a personal trip on a holiday, driving a van not officially issued to him. The RTC (April 4, 2011) found that, even assuming Bicomong’s negligence, he was acting outside the scope of his duties and that defendants therefore were not liable under Article 2180; conversely, the RTC held defendants failed to prove the plaintiff-driver’s negligence; consequently both complaint and counterclaim were dismissed and each party was to bear its own losses.
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 96961). The CA, applying Articles 2176 and 2180 and the registered-owner rule, affirmed the RTC on September 26, 2012, concluding respondents discharged the presumption attaching to registered-owner liability by showing Bicomong was on a personal errand on a holiday and was not using an officially-assigned vehicle; the CA also found that Sayson did not exercise defensive measures and may have had ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondents waive the defense that Bicomong was acting outside the scope of his employment because that defense was not pleaded in their answer or motion to dismiss?
- Were respondents liable to petitioners for the collision under Articles 2176, 2180 and related doctrines (including the registered-owner rule and Article 2185), or did petitioners’ driver fail to exercise the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers and have the l...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)