!

Phil Hawk v. Tan Lee

GR 166869
February 16, 2010
FACTS:
This is a petition for review by certiorari of the decision of the CA. On March 15, 2005
respondent filed a case for damages based on quasi-delict arising from a vehicular accident that
occurred on March 17, 1991. The accident resulted in the death of respondents husband and
caused physical injuries.
The accident involved their motorcycle, a passenger jeep, and a bus that was owned by
petitioners and was then being driven by Margarito Avila. Petitioner denied responsibility for the
accident, and asserted that it exercised the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection
and supervision of its employees including Avila. Avila testified that after the collision, he did not
stop to help out for fear for his life but drove on and surrendered to the police. He further testified
that he had previously been involved in sideswiping incidents but he forgot how many times.
Sisperes, operations officer of petitioner testified that like their other drivers, Avila was
subjected to and passed the ff requirements:
(1) Submission of NBI clearance
(2) Certification from his previous employer that he had no bad record
(3) Physical examination to determine his fitness to drive
(4) Test of his driving ability, particularly his defensive skill
(5) Review of his driving skill every six months
The trial court rendered judgment against petitioner and Avila and awarded damages to
Lee. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court but modified the award of damages.
Petitioner then filed this petition.

ISSUES:
1.) WON petitioner is liable to respondent for damages.
HELD:
1. YES. Whenever an employees negligence causes damage or injury to another,
there instantly arises a presumption that the employer failed to exercise the due
diligence of a good father of the family in the selection or supervision of its employees.
To avoid liability for a quasi-delict committed by his employee, an employer must
overcome the presumption by presenting convincing proof that he exercised the care and
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee. The
Court upholds the finding of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that petitioner is liable
to respondent, since it failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the
selection and supervision of its bus driver, Margarito Avila, for having failed to sufficiently

Prepared by: Giancarlo Abelard D. Fernando

inculcate in him discipline and correct behavior on the road. Indeed, petitioners tests were
concentrated on the ability to drive and physical fitness to do so. It also did not know that
Avila had been previously involved in sideswiping incidents.

Prepared by: Giancarlo Abelard D. Fernando