Title
Greenstar Express, Inc. vs. Universal Robina Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 205090
Decision Date
Oct 17, 2016
Bus driver Sayson collided with URC’s van driven by Bicomong, who was on a personal trip. SC ruled Bicomong’s employer not liable; Sayson negligent, failed to avoid accident.
collision
transportation company
driver

Case Summary (G.R. No. 205090)

Factual Background

At about 6:50 a.m. on February 25, 2003, along Km. 76, Maharlika Highway, Brgy. San Agustin, Alaminos, Laguna, a head-on collision occurred between a Greenstar passenger bus driven by Fruto L. Sayson, Jr. and a Mitsubishi L-300 van registered in the name of Universal Robina Corporation and operated by Renante Bicomong, Operations Manager of Nissin Universal Robina Corporation; Bicomong died at the scene. Sayson testified that he had been driving toward Manila at about sixty kilometers per hour, had observed the van on the opposite shoulder roughly 250 meters away, saw it re-enter the roadway directly toward his bus and attempted to swerve but could not avoid impact. Police investigator SPO3 Ernesto Marfori prepared a sketch and reported that the point of impact was almost at the right lane, the lane of the bus.

Trial Court Proceedings

Petitioners filed Civil Case No. SPL-0969 alleging negligence. At trial petitioners presented five witnesses including Sayson; respondents presented three witnesses including NURC personnel and Bicomong’s widow. Respondents adduced evidence that February 25, 2003 had been declared a holiday, that Bicomong was returning to his hometown in Quezon for personal reasons, that the L-300 van was not officially issued to him but assigned to another employee, and that NURC had no plant in Quezon or Laguna. The RTC found that Bicomong was not performing his assigned tasks at the time of the accident and that, even assuming Bicomong’s negligence, respondents were not vicariously liable under Art. 2180; the RTC dismissed both the complaint and respondents’ counterclaim.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC on September 26, 2012. The CA reiterated that under Art. 2180 employers are liable for acts of employees acting within the scope of assigned tasks and that the mere use of a service vehicle does not by itself establish employer liability. Citing precedents, the CA found that Bicomong was on personal travel during a declared holiday and was not acting within the scope of his employment; the CA upheld the trial court’s credibility assessments and affirmed dismissal of the complaint.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The petition contended that the CA erred in holding respondents not liable for petitioners’ damages because Bicomong’s negligence was the proximate cause; petitioners also argued that respondents raised defenses at trial that they had not pleaded and thus waived under Rule 9, Sec. 1. Petitioners urged application of Arts. 2176, 2180, and 2185, and reliance on the presumption of negligence attendant to traffic violations.

Parties’ Principal Contentions

Petitioners maintained that Bicomong illegally occupied the bus lane, creating a presumption of negligence under Art. 2185, that respondents failed to rebut the presumption by proof of due diligence in selection and supervision, and that respondents waived the defense that Bicomong was acting outside the scope of employment by failing to plead it. Respondents countered that the collision occurred on a declared holiday while Bicomong was on a personal trip in a vehicle not officially assigned to him, that they therefore rebutted the presumption of vicarious liability under Art. 2180, and that under Rule 10, Sec. 5 the pleadings were deemed to have been conformed to the evidence presented at trial.

Legal Analysis Adopted by the Supreme Court

The Court applied the framework articulated in Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc. v. Abejar to harmonize the registered-owner rule with Arts. 2176 and 2180. When a plaintiff proves registration and ownership and establishes the employment relationship, a disputable presumption arises that the requirements of Art. 2180 are satisfied and the burden shifts to the registered owner-employer to prove either absence of employment relationship, that the employee acted outside the scope of assigned tasks, or that the employer exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in selection and supervision.

Application of the Registered-Owner Rule and Article 2180 to the Facts

The Court observed that respondents established ownership of the van, Bicomong’s status as employee, the lack of any NURC plant in Quezon or Laguna, that February 25, 2003 was a declared holiday, that Bicomong was traveling home for personal purposes, and that the L-300 was not officially assigned to him. On that basis respondents overcame the presumption of vicarious liability by proving that Bicomong acted outside the scope of his assigned tasks at the time of the collision.

Assessment of Petitioners’ Procedural Objection

The Court rejected petitioners’ contention that respondents waived the defense that Bicomong was not acting within the scope of his duties because that factual showing was illustrative of respondents’ pleaded defense of absence of negligence. The Court held that failure to allege particular facts in the answer did not bar presentation of such evidence at trial, and that under Rule 10, Sec. 5 pleadings may be treated as amended to conform to the evidence; petitioners’ failure to

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms