Case Summary (G.R. No. 197626)
Procedural History
After an extrajudicial demand was ignored, the Bayaban spouses filed a complaint for damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City against Imperial, Laraga, and the tricycle driver, Gerardo Mercado. The RTC found Laraga negligent and Imperial vicariously liable for failing to prove due diligence, awarding actual, moral, exemplary, temperate damages, and attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed liability but deleted the temperate damages award. Imperial filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
- Whether the CA improperly shifted the burden to the petitioner to prove that Laraga was acting outside the scope of his assigned tasks.
- Whether the respondents’ original medical and hospital receipts, unauthenticated under Rule 132, are competent evidence of actual damages.
Applicable Law
This decision, rendered under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, applies Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. Article 2176 establishes liability for quasi-delict (fault or negligence causing damage absent contractual relations). Article 2180 imposes vicarious liability on employers for damages caused by employees acting within the scope of their tasks, subject to proof of due diligence.
Scope of Employment and Burden of Proof
Under jurisprudence, the plaintiff must prove (a) the employer-employee relationship and (b) that the negligent act occurred within the scope of the employee’s assigned tasks. Once established, a rebuttable presumption arises that the employer was negligent in selecting and supervising the employee.
Employer’s Due Diligence Requirement
To overcome the presumption, the employer must demonstrate the “diligence of a good father of a family” in selecting and supervising the employee. Unsupported or self-serving testimony without documentary evidence does not satisfy this stringent standard.
Liability of Raul S. Imperial
Respondents proved that Laraga was Imperial’s family driver and that, at the time of the accident, he was operating the van in furtherance of Imperial’s interests—maintaining Imperial’s greenhouse and water system in Antipolo. Imperial failed to produce evidence that Laraga’s Sunday driving was unauthorized or outside his duties. The presumption of Imperial’s negligence in employee supervision remained unrebutted, rendering him solidarily liable with Laraga.
Admissibility of Medical Receipts
Official hospital receipts are private documents under Rule 132, Section 19 of the Rules of Court and require authentication. Mary Lou Bayaban’s testimony as payee who received and paid these services adequately established their execution and authenticity. As original documents, they constituted the best evidence of actual medical expenses.
Award of Actual and Temperate Damages
The Supreme Court affirmed actual damages of ₱462,868.83 for medical expenses; reinstated temperate damages
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 197626)
Facts
- On December 14, 2003 at about 3:00 p.m., a Mitsubishi L-300 van (plate USX 931) driven by William Laraga collided with a tricycle (plate DU 8833) driven by Gerardo Mercado along Sumulong Highway, Antipolo City.
- On board the tricycle were spouses Neil and Mary Lou Bayaban, both of whom sustained multiple fractures requiring hospitalization and therapy.
- Neil’s injuries included open Type III-B comminuted displaced tibial and femoral fractures and a displaced lateral tibial plateau fracture.
- Mary Lou’s injuries comprised displaced comminuted distal radius and humerus fractures and ulnocarpal/ulnoradial dislocation.
- The Bayaban Spouses incurred medical expenses, underwent post-medical treatment, and suffered loss of income.
- They demanded compensation from Imperial (van owner), Laraga (driver/employee), and Mercado (tricycle driver); their demand was ignored.
- The Bayaban Spouses filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City for actual damages (medical expenses and unearned income), moral damages, temperate damages, and attorney’s fees.
- Imperial denied liability, claiming the van was on loan to Rosalia Habon Pascua for garden repairs and that Laraga was off-duty on his rest day; he also asserted that he had exercised due diligence in hiring and supervising Laraga.
Procedural History
- RTC Decision (March 15, 2009): Held Laraga negligent and Imperial presumed negligent for failing to prove due diligence. Ordered joint and solidary payment of actual damages (₱462,868.83), temperate damages (₱100,000.00), moral damages (₱50,000.00), exemplary damages (₱50,000.00), attorney’s fees (₱25,000.00), and costs of suit.
- Court of Appeals Decision (March 18, 2011): Affirmed RTC result but deleted the temperate damages award, ruling it mutually exclusive with actual damages.
- CA Resolution (July 11, 2011): Denied Imperial’s motion for reconsideration.
- Supreme Court Petition (August 23, 2011): Imperial sought certiorari review of COA’s decision. Respondents filed comment; parties submitted memoranda upon SC directive.
Issues
- Did the Court of Appeals improperly shift to Imperial the burden of proving that Laraga was not acting within the scope of his employmen