DUAVIT v COURT OF APPEALS

GR No. 82318; May 18, 1989

FACTS:
The jeep being driven by defendant Sabiniano collided with another jeep, which had
then 2 passengers on it. As a result of the collision the passengers of the other jeep
suffered injury and the automobile itself had to be repaired because of the
extensive damage.
A case was filed against Sabiniano as driver and against Duavit as owner of
the jeep. Duavit admitted ownership of the jeep but denied that Sabiniano was his
employee. Sabiniano himself admitted that he took Duavits jeep from the garage
without consent or authority of the owner. He testified further that Duavit even filed
charges against him for theft of the jeep, but which Duavit did not push through as
the parents of Sabiniano apologized to Duavit on his behalf.
Trial Court found Sabiniano negligent in driving the vehicle but absolved Duavit on
the ground that there was no employer-employee relationship between them, and
that former took the vehicle without consent or authority of the latter.
CA held the two of them jointly and severally liable.
ISSUE:
Won the owner of a private vehicle which figured in an accident can be held liable
under Article2180 of the CC when the said vehicle was neither driven by an
employee of the owner nor taken with the consent of the latter.
HELD:
NO
In Duquillo v Bayot (1939), SC ruled that an owner of a vehicle cannot be held liable
for an accident involving a vehicle if the same was driven without his consent or
knowledge and by a person not employed by him. This ruling is still relevant and
applicable, and hence, must be upheld.
CAs reliance on the cases of Erezo v Jepte and Vargas v Langcay is misplaced and
cannot be sustained. In Erezo v Jepte case, defendant Jepte was held liable for the
death of Erezo even if he was not really the owner of the truck that killed the latter
because he represented himself as its owner to the Motor Vehicles Office and had it
registered under his name; he was thus estopped from later on denying such
representation. In Vargas, Vargas sold her jeepney to a 3rd person, but she did not
surrender to the Motor VehiclesOffice the corresponding AC plates. So when the
jeepney later on figured in an accident, she was held liable by the court. Holding
that the operator of record continues to be the operator of vehicle incontemplation
of law, as regards the public and 3rd persons.
The circumstances of the above cases are entirely different from those in the
present case. Hereinpetitioner does not deny ownership of vehicle but denies

having employed or authorized the driver Sabiniano. The jeep was virtually stolen
from the petitioners garage.
Decision and resolution annulled and set aside.