View full case

METRO MANILA TRANSIT CORPORATION v. CA

FACTS:

Nenita Custodio was injured when the jeepney she was riding collided with an MMTC bus. She filed a complaint for damages against the defendants, who denied the allegations and blamed each other for the accident. Custodio and her parents testified, along with a doctor who explained her injuries. Milagros Garbo, a training officer of MMTC, testified on the selection process for bus drivers. Lamayo did not present any witnesses.

The trial court found both drivers concurrently negligent and held them, as well as the tricycle driver who caused the incident, solidarily liable for damages. MMTC was absolved from liability due to its diligence in selecting and supervising its employees. The trial court ordered the defendants to pay various amounts for medical expenses, moral damages, loss of earnings, and more. The tricycle driver appealed, and the Court of Appeals modified the decision, holding MMTC solidarily liable. MMTC filed a petition for review, raising issues on the sufficiency of evidence and the timeliness of the petition.

The petitioner argues that the oral testimonies of its employees prove the driver's compliance with requirements and necessary training. It claims that there is no law requiring the establishment of facts by documentary evidence and that the testimonies should not be disregarded on appeal. The private respondent argues that the factual findings of the respondent court are conclusive and should not be reevaluated. The court notes exceptions to the conclusive nature of findings of fact by the Court of Appeals, such as when they are based on speculation, mistaken inference, grave abuse of discretion, or conflicting findings.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals may reverse the factual findings of the trial court.

  2. Whether the findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon the Supreme Court.

  3. Whether the liability of MMTC as the employer of one of the drivers is established.

  4. Whether the petitioner has met the burden of proof in showing the observance of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees.

  5. Whether the evidence presented by the petitioner is sufficient to prove the diligence of a good father of a family.

  6. Whether or not the petitioner is liable for damages under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code.

  7. Whether or not the employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the driver has been established.

  8. Whether or not the petitioner exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the Court of Appeals may reverse the factual findings of the trial court if there is a mistake in the appreciation of evidence.

  2. The findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are generally conclusive upon and beyond the power of review of the Supreme Court. However, there are exceptions to this rule.

  3. The liability of MMTC as the employer of one of the drivers is not established as MMTC was able to prove the exercise of due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees.

  4. The petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the observance of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees. The testimonial evidence presented by the petitioner's witnesses was considered insufficient as it dwelled on mere generalities and was not supported by any other evidence, whether documentary or object. Therefore, the burden of proof has not been met by the petitioner.

  5. The evidence presented by the petitioner is not convincing enough to prove the diligence of a good father of a family. The statements made by the petitioner were deemed presumptuous and in the nature of petitio principii (assuming the conclusion as a premise), as they were couched in generalities and lacked supporting evidence.

  6. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner is liable for damages under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code. The elements of quasi-delict are present in this case: damages suffered by the plaintiff, fault or negligence of the defendant or another person for whose act he must respond, and the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damages incurred by the plaintiff. The employer of the driver is liable for damages caused by the employee acting within the scope of his assigned tasks, even if the employer is not engaged in any business or industry. The basis of the employer's vicarious liability lies in the presumption of negligence on the part of the persons responsible, derived from their failure to exercise due care over the acts of their subordinates. The liability of the employer is rebuttable only by proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a family.

  7. The Supreme Court ruled that the employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the driver has been established. Once this relationship is proven, the plaintiff must show that the employee was acting within the scope of his assigned task when the tort was committed. It is then up to the employer to interpose the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees. The diligence required of employers is to protect the public by observing due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees.

  8. The Court ruled that the petitioner failed to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. It held that the mere formulation of company policies on safety and hiring procedures, without actual implementation and consistent compliance with said policies, is not enough to exempt the petitioner from liability arising from the negligence of its employees. The petitioner has the burden of proving that it has been diligent not only in the selection of employees but also in the actual supervision of their work. The Court emphasized that paying mere lip-service to these obligations or going through the motions of compliance will warrant stern sanctions. In this case, the petitioner failed to perform its obligations imposed by law and public policy for the safety of the commuting public.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Factual findings of the trial court may be reversed by the Court of Appeals if there is a mistake in the appreciation of evidence.

  • The findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon and beyond the power of review of the Supreme Court, but there are exceptions to this rule.

  • In civil cases, each party has the burden of proving their own affirmative assertion by preponderance of evidence.

  • The burden of proof lies on the party asserting a claim or defense, and it is their responsibility to present sufficient evidence to support their position.

  • Testimonial evidence, whether supported by documentary or object evidence, must be persuasive and not merely rely on generalities. The best and most complete evidence should be formally entered to prove one's case.

  • The legal presumption of negligence can be overcome by showing the observance of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees, but this requires clear and convincing evidence.

  • The diligence of a good father of a family, which translates to the observance of due diligence by an employer, is often more honored in the breach than in the observance, and therefore, the evidence presented to prove it must be convincing and not reliant on general statements.

  • The employer is liable for damages caused by the employee acting within the scope of his assigned tasks, even if the employer is not engaged in any business or industry. (Article 2180, Civil Code)

  • The employer's liability is based on the presumption of negligence derived from their failure to exercise due care over the acts of their subordinates. The liability is rebuttable only by proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a family. (Article 2180, Civil Code)

  • The employer-employee relationship must be established to hold the employer liable. Once established, the employer may interpose the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees. (Article 2180, Civil Code)

  • The diligence required of employers in the selection and supervision of employees is to protect the public. (Article 2180, Civil Code)

  • Employers have the obligation to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees.

  • Due diligence in the selection of employees includes taking necessary steps to determine their qualifications, experience, and record of service.

  • Due diligence in the supervision of employees includes the formulation of suitable rules and regulations, the issuance of proper instructions, and the imposition of necessary disciplinary measures to ensure the performance of acts beneficial to the employer.

  • Mere formulation of company policies and procedures without actual implementation and consistent compliance is not enough to exempt the employer from liability.

  • The employer has the burden of proving that it has been diligent in both the selection and supervision of its employees.

  • The negligence of the employee gives rise to the presumption of negligence on the part of the employer, hence, the employer must prove its due diligence.

  • The mere allegation of the existence of hiring procedures and supervisory policies, without anything more, is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of employer negligence.

  • Obligations imposed by law and public policy in the interests and safety of the commuting public should be diligently performed by employers.

  • The standard of extraordinary diligence required from common carriers benefits not only their passengers but also pedestrians and the owners and passengers of other vehicles who are entitled to the safe use of roads and highways.

  • The award of interest as part of damages in quasi-delicts is within the discretion of the court and not a matter of right.