ARMANDO JOSE y PAZ and MANILA CENTRAL BUS LINES (MCL), represented by its General Manager MR.

DANILO T. DE DIOS, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ROMMEL ABRAHAM, represented by his father
FELIXBERTO ABRAHAM, JOSE MACARUBO and MERCEDES MACARUBO, respondents.
G. R. Nos. 118441-42. January 18, 2000.

petition for review on certiorari of the decision[1] of the Court of Appeals, reversing the decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 172, Valenzuela, Metro Manila and ordering petitioners to pay damages for injuries to persons and
damage to property as a result of a vehicular accident.

FACTS:

On February 22, 1985, a bus driven by petitioner Armando Jose, collided with a red Ford Escort driven by John
Macarubo.As a result of the collision, the left side of the Ford Escort’s hood was severely damaged while its driver and
its lone passenger, private respondent Rommel Abraham, were seriously injuredMacarubo, despite being taken to
hospital, died after he undergone a surgery. Abraham, on the other hand, became blind on the left eye which had to be
removed. In addition, he sustained a fracture on the forehead and multiple lacerations on the face, which caused him to
be hospitalized for a week. Consequently, respondent, represented by his father, Felixberto, instituted a civil case for
damages against petitioners MCL and Armando Jose in the Regional Trial Court.On July 17, 1986, the spouses Jose
and Mercedes Macarubo, parents of the deceased John Macarubo, filed their own suit for damages in the same trial
court. On the other hand, MCL filed a third-party complaint against Juanita Macarubo, registered owner of
the Ford Escort on the theory that John Macarubo was negligent and that he was the “authorized driver” of Juanita
Macarubo. The latter, in turn, filed a counterclaim for damages against MCL for the damage to her car. The trial court
rendered judgment dismissing both civil cases against MCL and ruling favorably on its third-party complaint against
Juanita Macarubo, ordering the latter to pay MCL P54,232.12 as actual damages, P24,000.00 for lost income, and
P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals rendered a decision reversing the decision of the trial court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Armando Jose, the owner of Bus 203 is liable for a quasi-delict

RULING:

It is such a firmly established principle, as to have virtually formed part of the law itself, that the negligence of the
employee gives rise to the presumption of negligence on the part of the employer. Before the presumption of the
employer’s negligence in the selection and supervision of its employees can arise, the negligence of the employee
must first be established. While the allegations of negligence against the employee and that of an employer-employee
relation in the complaint are enough to make out a case of quasi-delict under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, the failure to
prove the employee’s negligence during the trial is fatal to proving the employer’s vicarious liability. In this case, private
respondents failed to prove their allegation of negligence against driver Armando Jose who, in fact, was acquitted in the
case for criminal negligence arising from the same incident. MCL failed to present any evidence to prove that Juanita
Macarubo was the employer of John Macarubo or that she is in any way liable for John Macarubo’s negligence under
Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. For failure to discharge its burden, MCL’s third-party complaint should be dismissed. Thus,
the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the complaints filed against MCL and Armando Jose, as well as
the third-party complaint filed against Juanita Macarubo, are dismissed.