Title
Syki vs. Begasa
Case
G.R. No. 149149
Decision Date
Oct 23, 2003
Respondent injured when truck owned by petitioner bumped jeepney; Supreme Court affirmed petitioner’s liability due to driver’s negligence, no contributory negligence found.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 199648)

Factual Background and Procedural Posture

On June 22, 1992, near Araneta and Magsaysay Streets in Bacolod City, respondent Salvador Begasa and companions boarded a passenger jeepney. While Begasa’s right foot was already inside the jeepney and the left foot on the step, petitioner’s truck, driven by Elizalde Sablayan, collided with the rear of the jeepney. The collision caused respondent to fall and sustain severe injuries, including a comminuted fracture of the left femur and multiple lacerations. Respondent filed a damage suit for breach of common carrier obligations and quasi-delict against the jeepney owner, petitioner Syki, and driver Sablayan. Trial court dismissed the case against the jeepney owner but held petitioner Syki and his driver jointly liable, awarding actual and moral damages plus attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in toto. Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition with the Supreme Court, challenging primarily the finding of employer liability and disputing the absence of contributory negligence on the part of respondent.

Employer Liability Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code

Article 2180 creates a presumption of employer negligence in cases where an employee causes damage while acting within the scope of his employment. The employer’s liability persists unless he proves he exercised “all the diligence of a good father of a family” in the selection and supervision of the employee. Thus, the burden of proof rests on the employer to rebut the presumption by showing due diligence. This case hinged on whether petitioner Syki met this burden in relation to his driver, Sablayan.

Standards for Proof of Due Diligence in Employee Selection and Supervision

Jurisprudence mandates that mere testimonial evidence on due diligence is insufficient to overcome the presumption of employer negligence. Concrete or documentary evidence must support oral testimony to counterbalance its inherent bias and effectively demonstrate proper hiring and supervisory protocols. The Supreme Court cited prior rulings involving the Metro Manila Transit Corporation, which consistently held employer testimony inadequate without documentary corroboration such as police clearances, examination results, training records, and supervisory logs. These evidentiary requirements ensure employers maintain accountability for the qualifications and conduct of employees operating vehicles or performing potentially hazardous work.

Specific Evidence and Findings on Due Diligence in This Case

Petitioner’s evidence comprised only his own and his mechanic’s oral testimony, stating that before hiring Sablayan, a police clearance was requested, and a driving test conducted. Petitioner asserted he personally accompanied the driver during testing, with training on traffic signs imparted by his mechanic. The mechanic testified that Sablayan passed the test and maintained the trucks’ mechanical condition. However, petitioner failed to present the actual police clearance, driving test results, or any records of vehicle inspections. This absence of documentary proof rendered the testimonial evidence insufficient to dispel the presumption of negligence in employing and supervising Sablayan. Consequently, the Court affirmed that petitioner Syki was liable under Article 2180 for the driver’s negligence causing the accident.

Obligation and Importance of Employer Diligence

The Court emphasized that the duty to exercise diligence in hiring and supervising employees under Article 2180 is substantive and crucial, not mere formalism. Failure to observe such diligence constitutes a valid basis for vicarious liability. Employers are thus urged to maintain and furnish sufficient concrete evidence of their due diligence to avoid liability for employee misconduct or negligence.

Issue of Contributory Negligence Under Article 2179 of the Civil Code

Petitioner contended for mitigation of damages based on contributory negligence by respondent, alleging respondent flagged down the jeepney at an improper place, causing the accident. Under Article 2179, full bar to recovery exists only if plaintiff’s negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of injury; contributory negligence merely reduces damages awarded.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Contributory Negligence

The Court found no evidence that respondent or his companions flagged down the passenger jeepney in a prohibited area. No local traffic regulations or ordinances were presented to support such a claim. The trial court’s dismissal of the case against

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms