Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22533)
Facts:
Placido C. Ramos and Augusto L. Ramos v. Pepsi‑Cola Bottling Co. of the P.I. and Andres Bonifacio, G.R. No. L-22533, February 09, 1967, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bengzon, J.P., J., writing for the Court.On May 10, 1958 a collision occurred between the car of plaintiff Placido C. Ramos (then driven by his son and co‑plaintiff Augusto L. Ramos) and a tractor‑truck and trailer owned by respondent Pepsi‑Cola Bottling Co. of the P.I. and driven by respondent Andres Bonifacio. On June 30, 1958 the Ramoses sued Pepsi‑Cola and Bonifacio in the Court of First Instance of Manila for damages arising from the collision.
After trial the Court of First Instance rendered judgment on April 15, 1961 finding Bonifacio negligent and also holding that Pepsi‑Cola had not sufficiently proved it had exercised the diligence of a good father of a family; the trial court ordered Pepsi‑Cola and Bonifacio, solidarily, to pay actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Pepsi‑Cola and Bonifacio appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated January 15, 1964, affirmed the trial court insofar as it found Bonifacio negligent but modified the judgment by absolving Pepsi‑Cola from liability. The appellate court accepted the uncontradicted testimony of Juan T. Anasco, personnel manager of Pepsi‑Cola, that the company had undertaken background clearances, medical examination, theoretical and practical driving tests and other screening steps when it engaged Bonifacio, and concluded that the company had exercised due diligence in selecting him.
The plaintiffs filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court contesting the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that Pepsi‑Cola had exercised due diligence in selecting its driver. They argued that Anasco, as an employee of Pepsi‑Cola, was a biased witness and that his test...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court, on a petition for review on certiorari, re‑examine the Court of Appeals’ findings on the credibility of witnesses and other factual findings?
- Did Pepsi‑Cola prove that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of its driver so as to relieve it from liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code?
- May appellants raise, for the first time before the Supreme Court, alleged violations of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law and the allegation that Pepsi‑C...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)