OWNERS, MANAGERS AND EMPLOYERS
L-9734 March 31, 1915
Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not
only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for
whom one is responsible. The father and, in case of his death or
incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the
minor children who live in their company. Guardians are liable for
damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under
their authority and live in their company. The owners and managers of an
establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused
by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are
employed or on the occasion of their functions. Employers shall be liable
for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former
are not engaged in any business or industry. The State is responsible in
like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the
damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly
pertains, in which case what is provided in article 2176 shall be
applicable. Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades
shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or
apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody. The responsibility
treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned
prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage. (1903a)
Article 1711. Owners of enterprises and other employers are obliged to
pay compensation for the death of or injuries to their laborers, workmen,
mechanics or other employees, even though the event may have been
purely accidental or entirely due to a fortuitous cause, if the death or
personal injury arose out of and in the course of the employment. The
employer is also liable for compensation if the employee contracts any
illness or disease caused by such employment or as the result of the
nature of the employment. If the mishap was due to the employee's own
notorious negligence, or voluntary act, or drunkenness, the employer
shall not be liable for compensation. When the employee's lack of due
care contributed to his death or injury, the compensation shall be
equitably reduced.
Article 1712. If the death or injury is due to the negligence of a fellow
worker, the latter and the employer shall be solidarily liable for
compensation. If a fellow worker's intentional or malicious act is the only
cause of the death or injury, the employer shall not be answerable,
unless it should be shown that the latter did not exercise due diligence in
the selection or supervision of the plaintiff's fellow worker.
G.R. No.
JUAN BAHIA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FAUSTA
LITONJUA, defendant-appellee, and MARIANO
LEYNES, defendant-appellant.
MORELAND, J.:
Ramon Ramirez was the owner and manager of a garage in
the city of Manila known as the International Garage.
His mother, Fausta Litonjua purchased an automobile to assist
her son in the business
Ramirez rented the automobile to the defendant Mariano
Leynes to be used by Leynes, to carry persons living in
Balayan to and from the fiesta which was about to take place
in Tuy.
While passing Balayan, the automobile, by reason of a defect
in the steering gear, refused to obey the direction of the driver
in turning a corner in the streets of Balayan, and, as a
consequence, ran across the street and into the wall of a
house against which the daughter of plaintiff was leaning at
the time.
The front of the machine struck the child in the center of the
body and crushed her to death.
The action was brought against the mother of Ramirez, who
bought the automobile, and Leynes, under whose direction
and control the automobile was being operated at the time of
the accident. Ramirez was not made a party.
The plaintiff and the defendant Leynes appealed from the
judgment, on the ground that the court erred in dismissing the
action as to the mother of Ramirez and the latter from that
portion of the judgment requiring him to pay to plaintiff
P1,000.
We are of the opinion that the action was properly dismissed as to
Fuasta Litonjua. It is a fact proved in the action and undisputed that,
although the mother purchased the automobile, she turned it
over to the garage of her son for use therein. The
establishment belonged to the son, Ramon Ramirez, and he
had the full management and control of it and received all the
profits therefrom. So far as appears, the contract with Leynes was
made without her knowledge or consent by Ramirez as the owner and
manager of the International Garage. While she may have been in
one sense the owner of the machine, that fact does not,
under the other facts of the case, make her responsible for
the results of the accident.
We are of the opinion that the judgment against Leynes must be
reversed and the complaint dismissed as to him. While it may be said
that, at the time of the accident, the chauffeur who was driving the
machine was a servant of Leynes, in as much as the profits derived
from the trips of the automobile belonged to him and the automobile
was operated under his direction, nevertheless, this fact is not
conclusive in making him responsible for the negligence of
the chauffeur or for defects in the automobile itself.
Article 1903 of the Civil Code not only establishes liability in cases of
negligence, but also provides when that liability shall cease. It says:
The liability referred to in this article shall cease when the
persons mentioned therein prove that they employed all the
diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the damages.
From this article two things are apparent: (1) That when an injury is
caused by the negligence of a servant or employee there instantly
arises a presumption of a law that there was negligence on the part
of the master or employer either in the selection of the servant or
employee, or in supervision over him after the selection, or both; and
(2) that presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure, and
consequently, may be rebutted. It follows necessarily that if the
employees shows to the satisfaction of the court that in selection and
supervision he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father
of a family, the presumption is overcome and he is relieved from
liability.
This theory bases the responsibility of the master ultimately on
his own negligence and not on that of his servant. This is the notable
peculiarly of the Spanish law negligence. It is, of course, in striking
contrast to the American doctrine that, in relations with strangers, the
negligence of the servant is conclusively the negligence of the master.
In the case before us the death of the child caused by a defect in the
steering gear of the automobile immediately raised the presumption
that Leynes was negligent in selecting a defective automobile or in
his failure to maintain it in good condition after selection, and the
burden of proof was on him to show that he had exercised the care of
a good father of a family.
As to selection, the defendant has clearly shown that he exercised the
care and diligence of a good father of a family.
He obtained the machine from a reputable garage and it was, so far
as appeared, in good condition.
The workmen were likewise selected from a standard garage, were
duly licensed by the Government in their particular calling, and
apparently thoroughly competent.
The machine had been used but a few hours when the accident
occurred and it is clear from the evidence that the defendant had no
notice, either actual or constructive, of the defective condition of the
steering gear.
From the commencement of the use of the machine until the accident
occurred sufficient time had not elapsed to require an examination of
the machine by the defendant as a part of his duty of inspection and
supervision. While it does not appear that the defendant formulated
rules and regulations for the guidance of the drivers and gave them
proper instructions, designed for the protection of the public and the
passengers,
The evidence shows, as we have seen, that the death of the child was
not caused by a failure to promulgate rules and regulations. It was
caused by a defect in the machine as to which the defendant
has shown himself free from responsibility.
The defendant Leynes having shown to the satisfaction of the court
that he exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family is
relieved of responsibility with respect to the death of plaintiff's child.
The judgment, in so far as it dismisses the complaint against Fausta
Litonjua, is affirmed with costs, and, in so far as to finds against
Mariano Leynes, is reversed and the complaint as to his dismissed,
without special finding as to costs in this instance. So ordered.
G.R. No. L-25142 March 25, 1975
PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. and FELIX
PANGALANGAN, plaintiffs-appellants,
vs. PHIL-AMERICAN FORWARDERS, INC., ARCHIMEDES J.
BALINGIT and FERNANDO PINEDA, defendants-appellees.
AQUINO, J
Nature:
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. and Felix Pangalangan
appealed on dismissing their complaint against Archimedes
Balingit.
The dismissal was based on the ground that Balingit as the
manager of Phil-American Forwarders, Inc., which together
with Fernando Pineda and Balingit, was sued for damages in
an action based on quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana, is not the
manager of an establishment contemplated in article 2180 of
the Civil Code.
Facts:
Pineda drove recklessly a freight truck, owned by Phil-
American Forwarders, Inc., along the national highway at Sto.
Tomas, Pampanga.
The truck bumped the bus driven by Pangalangan, which was
owned by Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc.
As a result of the bumping, Pangalangan suffered injuries and
the bus was damaged and could not be used for seventy-nine
days, thus depriving the company of earnings amounting to
P8,665.51.
Balingit was the manager of Phil-American Forwarders, Inc.
Defendants PH AMERICAN FORWARDEES in their answer
alleged that Balingit was not Pineda's employer.
Balingit moved that the complaint against him be dismissed on
the ground that the bus company and the bus driver had no
cause of action against him.
The lower court dismissed the action as to Balingit.
The bus company and its driver appealed.
The Civil Code provides:
ART. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed
by the provisions of this Chapter.
ART. 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not
only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for
whom one is responsible.
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are
likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the
service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the
occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees
and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks,
even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the
persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence
of a good father of a family to prevent damage. (1903a)
The novel and unprecedented legal issue in this appeal is whether the
terms "employers" and "owners and managers of an
establishment or enterprise" (dueos o directores de un
establicimiento o empresa) used in article 2180 of the Civil Code,
formerly article 1903 of the old Code, embrace the manager of a
corporation owning a truck, the reckless operation of which
allegedly resulted in the vehicular accident from which the damage
arose.
We are of the opinion that those terms do not include the manager of
a corporation. It may be gathered from the context of article 2180
that the term "manager" ("director" in the Spanish version) is used
in the sense of "employer".

Hence, under the allegations of the complaint, no tortious or quasi-

delictual liability can be attached on Balingit as manager of Phil-
American Forwarders, Inc., in connection with the vehicular accident
already mentioned because he himself may be regarded as
an employee or dependiente of his employer, Phil-American
Forwarders, Inc.

The bus company and its driver, in their appellants' brief, injected a
new factual issue which was not alleged in their complaint. They
argue that Phil- American Forwarders, Inc. is merely a business
conduit of Balingit because out of its capital stock with a par value of
P41,200, Balingit and his wife had subscribed P40,000 and they paid
P10,000 on their subscription, while the other incorporators, namely,
Rodolfo Limjuco, Ponciano Caparas and Rafael Suntay paid P250.25
and P25, respectively.

That argument implies that the veil of corporate fiction should be

pierced and that Phil-American Forwarders, Inc. and Balingit and his
wife should be treated as one and the same civil personality.

We cannot countenance that argument in this appeal. It was not

raised in the lower court. The case has to be decided on the basis of
the pleadings filed in the trial court where it was assumed that Phil-
American Forwarders, Inc. has a personality separate and distinct
from that of the Balingit spouses.

WHEREFORE, the lower court's order of dismissal is affirmed. Costs

against the plaintiffs-appellants.