Case Summary (A.M. No. 96-5-169-RTC)
Facts of the Incident
On December 12, 1993, shortly after Loreta J. Yu alighted from a bus along EDSA at Robinsons Galleria, she was struck and run over by a bus driven by Antonio P. Gimena. The victim was declared dead on arrival at The Medical City Hospital.
Procedural Posture in the Regional Trial Court
On February 3, 1994, respondent filed a complaint for damages against R Transport Corporation, Antonio Gimena, and Metro Manila Transport Corporation (MMTC). MMTC denied operational and employment ties, asserting mere registered ownership under a government resale program. R Transport invoked due diligence in employee selection and supervision; Gimena defaulted.
Findings and Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The RTC held R Transport liable for failing to prove due diligence as “a good father of a family” in supervising Gimena. It also imposed solidary liability on MMTC to protect the tort victim from proving actual ownership. Damages awarded included actual, moral, exemplary, and loss of income, plus attorney’s fees and costs.
Court of Appeals’ Decision and Modification
The CA affirmed the RTC’s liability ruling, modifying the liability of Gimena from subsidiary to solidary alongside R Transport and MMTC. It found proven negligence by Gimena and no evidence of R Transport’s due diligence defense. The CA rejected argument that non-registered ownership absolved R Transport.
Issues Raised in the Petition for Review
R Transport contends the CA and RTC erred in finding its driver negligent, arguing lack of corroborating evidence and attributing proximate cause to the bus from which the victim alighted. It further asserts non-registered ownership precludes its liability.
Standard of Review and Jurisdictional Limitation
Under Rule 45, the Supreme Court’s review is confined to errors of law; factual findings of both lower courts are binding unless one of eight exceptional circumstances (e.g., findings based on conjecture, grave abuse of discretion) is shown. No such circumstances exist here.
Negligence and Proximate Cause
Negligence requires failure to exercise reasonable care under circumstances. Eyewitness and autopsy evidence of catastrophic injuries, coupled with reckless speed in a busy loading/unloading zone, establish Gimena’s negligence as the proximate cause of Loreta’s death.
Employer Liability under Article 2180, New Civil Code
An employer is presumed negligent for torts of employees acting within assigned tasks; to rebut, the employer must prove care equiva
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. 96-5-169-RTC)
Antecedent Facts
- On December 12, 1993, at around 8:45 AM, Loreta J. Yu alighted from a passenger bus in front of Robinsons Galleria along the north-bound lane of Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA).
- A bus driven by Antonio P. Gimena—an employee of R Transport Corporation—struck and run over Loreta immediately after she disembarked.
- Loreta was rushed to Medical City Hospital and pronounced dead on arrival.
Procedural History
- February 3, 1994: Luisito G. Yu (husband of the deceased) filed a complaint for damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City against R Transport, Antonio P. Gimena, and Metro Manila Transport Corporation (MMTC).
- MMTC denied liability, asserting it was merely the registered owner awaiting resale under the government’s Bus Installment Purchase Program; R Transport pleaded due diligence in selecting and supervising its drivers and proper bus maintenance.
- Antonio P. Gimena was declared in default for failure to answer the complaint.
- June 3, 2004: RTC rendered judgment finding R Transport and MMTC solidarily liable and Gimena subsidiarily liable; awarded actual damages (₱78,357), loss of income (₱500,000), moral damages (₱150,000), exemplary damages (₱20,000), attorney’s fees (₱10,000), and costs of suit.
- September 9, 2005: Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC Decision, modifying that Gimena be made solidarily liable for damages.
- August 8, 2006: CA denied R Transport’s motion for reconsideration.
- 2015: R Transport filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court.
Issue
- Whether driver Antonio P. Gimena’s negligence was sufficiently proven as the proximate cause of Loreta J. Yu’s death.
- Whether R Transport exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in selecting and supervising its driver to rebut the presumption of employer liability under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code.
- Whether R Transport, not being the registered owner of the offending bus, may escape liability for the quasi-delict committed by its employee.