Title
Erezo vs. Jepte
Case
G.R. No. L-9605
Decision Date
Sep 30, 1957
Registered owner Aguedo Jepte held liable for fatal truck collision despite claiming non-ownership, as registration records establish public accountability.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-9605)

Legal Background and Incident Details

The truck, bearing plate No. TC-1253, collided with a taxicab and subsequently struck Ernesto Erezo. Following the collision, the driver was charged with homicide through reckless negligence and was sentenced to imprisonment and a payment of P3,000 to the heirs of the deceased. Unable to collect this amount from the driver, Gaudioso Erezo initiated legal action against Aguedo Jepte, seeking to recover the damages as the registered owner of the vehicle.

Assertions of Ownership and Liability

The defendant-appellant claimed that the truck belonged to the Port Brokerage and that he merely acted as a broker. He argued that the vehicle was registered in his name for convenience, as he used his back pay to cover registration fees, a claim corroborated by Policarpio Franco, the corporation's manager. However, this arrangement was not disclosed to the Motor Vehicles Office.

Trial Court Findings

The trial court ruled that the defendant-appellant could not deny ownership as the registered owner of the truck. The court emphasized that the Government and third parties have the right to rely on the registration, and any declarations made regarding ownership cannot be repudiated once relied upon. This principle was grounded in the notion that the public assumes the registered owner is the actual owner for accountability purposes.

Established Precedents and Obligations

In previous rulings, it has been established that registered owners of vehicles are liable for injuries caused by their vehicles, regardless of any transfer of ownership. The rationale is that consumers and victims should not be burdened with the task of proving true ownership for liability and that the public must have a reliable way to identify responsible parties in incidents caused by vehicles.

Reception of Defendant's Arguments

The defendant-appellant questioned the trial court's decision by asserting that no employer-employee relationship existed between him and the driver, contending that he was not the real owner of the vehicle. The argument failed to persuade the higher court, which stressed that the presumption of ownership based on vehicle registration remained unchallenged.

Legal Framework on Vehicle Registration

According to the Revised Motor Vehicles Law (Act No. 3992, as amended), registration serves as a preventive measure against injuries on public highways by identifying owners and operators of vehicles. The law's purpose is to ensure that in cases of accidents, responsibility can be attributed to a known entity, thereby enhancing public safety and accountability.

Court’s Conclusion on Registered Owner's Liability

The court concluded that permitting registered owners to evade liabilities by presenting ownership claims or proofs would undermine the law's purpose, inadvertently allowing for the evasion of accountability. Such a practice would make it difficult for victims to identify liable parties, ultimately failing to protect public interest.

Affirmation and Cost Imp

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.