Case Summary (G.R. No. 188747)
Facts of the Case
On August 28, 1988 at about 1:30–2:00 a.m., Romeo So Vasquez, riding a Honda motorcycle without helmet or goggles and holding only a student permit, traveled counter‐clockwise around Fuente Osmeña Rotunda. Concurrently, Benjamin Abad drove a company Toyota pick-up against the rotunda traffic flow, struck Vasquez’s motorcycle, and transported him first to Southern Islands Hospital and later to Cebu Doctors’ Hospital. Vasquez died on September 5, 1988. Abad had signed an acknowledgment of responsibility for medical charges. A criminal complaint against Abad was later dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Procedural History
• Trial Court (Mandaue City RTC) found both Abad and Castilex jointly and solidarily liable for burial expenses (P8,000), moral damages (P50,000), attorney’s fees (P10,000), loss of earning capacity (P778,752), and medical bills (P50,927.83 plus interest); cost of litigation was also awarded.
• Court of Appeals (May 21, 1997) affirmed liability but held Castilex only vicariously liable, reduced loss of earning capacity to P214,156.80, and cut medical‐bill interest to 12% per annum. Upon motion for reconsideration, moral damages were reduced to P30,000, attorney’s fees deleted, and interest trimmed to 6% per annum.
• Castilex’s petition to the Supreme Court challenges the application of Article 2180’s fifth paragraph instead of its fourth, the burden of proof rule, and certain damage awards.
Issues
- Whether Castilex is vicariously liable for Abad’s negligence under Article 2180 of the Civil Code (1987 Constitution as governing law).
- Which paragraph of Article 2180 applies.
- Who bears the burden of proving whether the employee was acting within the scope of employment.
- Whether the factual findings that Abad acted within his scope are supported by evidence.
- Proper quantum of damages if liability is upheld.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution – basis for civil‐law and procedural rules post-1990 decisions.
• Civil Code, Article 2180, fourth and fifth paragraphs – vicarious liability of employers for torts of employees acting within scope of tasks.
• Rules of Court – Sections 11(Rule 13) and 4(Rule 45) on service of petition and material dates in petitions for review on certiorari.
Ruling on Procedural Objections
The Court of Appeals held that Castilex complied with Section 11, Rule 13 by explaining service by registered mail, and that Rule 45’s “material dates” requirement does not mandate stating original reglementary‐period expiration or motion‐for‐extension dates. Accordingly, the petition is procedurally compliant.
Vicarious Liability Analysis
• Article 2180, fourth paragraph, covers owners/managers for negligent acts in course of functions.
• Fifth paragraph extends liability to any employer whose employee commits torts within scope of assigned tasks, regardless of business engagement.
• Once employer–employee relationship is proven, plaintiff must show the employee was acting within the scope of duty; only then may the employer invoke due diligence defense.
• The burden of proof rests with the party asserting a fact; Castilex had no duty to prove Abad was acting outside his assignment once it denied scope-of-employment.
Application to the Present Case
• Abad finished overtime work at Castilex’s Mandaue office, t
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 188747)
Procedural History
- August 28, 1988: Collision between respondent Romeo So Vasquez’s motorcycle and a company-issued vehicle driven by petitioner’s manager, Jose Benjamin Abad.
- Trial Court: Held Abad and Castilex jointly and solidarily liable; awarded burial expenses, moral damages, attorney’s fees, loss of earning capacity to the Vasquezes, and medical bills to Cebu Doctors’ Hospital.
- Court of Appeals (May 21, 1997; modified on reconsideration): Affirmed liability of Abad and Castilex (only vicarious for Castilex); reduced loss of earning capacity, adjusted interest rate, lowered moral damages, and deleted attorney’s fees.
- Supreme Court: Castilex petitioned for review, challenging the application of Article 2180 of the Civil Code, scope-of-employment findings, burden of proof allocation, and procedural compliance.
Facts
- Date/Time of Accident: August 28, 1988, at about 1:30–2:00 a.m.
- Romeo So Vasquez: Riding a Honda motorcycle without helmet or goggles, holding only a student’s permit, following normal rotunda flow.
- Jose Benjamin Abad: Production Manager of Castilex, driving company Toyota Hi-Lux pickup without helmet and against rotunda traffic to shortcut his route.
- Collision: Caused severe injuries to Vasquez, who was first brought to Southern Islands Hospital, then to Cebu Doctors’ Hospital, where he died on September 5, 1988.
- Responsibility Acknowledgment: Abad signed Exhibit K, agreeing to pay all hospital and professional fees incurred by Vasquez.
- Criminal Case: Filed then dismissed for failure to prosecute; civil damages suit followed by Vasquez parents and Cebu Doctors’ Hospital’s intervention.
Issues Presented
- Whether Castilex is vicariously liable for the death of Vasquez resulting from the negligent operation of a company vehicle by its managerial employee outside office hours.
- Proper application of the fourth versus the fifth paragraph of Article 2180, Civil Code, in establishing employer liability.
- Allocation of the burden of proof for whether the employee acted within