FACTS:
On August 28, 1988, Romeo So Vasquez was driving a motorcycle without a helmet or goggles, carrying only a Student's Permit to Drive. Benjamin Abad, a manager of Castilex Industrial Corporation, was driving a company-issued vehicle and took a shortcut against the flow of traffic. The motorcycle and the company car collided, causing severe injuries to Vasquez. Abad brought Vasquez to the hospital, where he signed acknowledgment of responsibility for the medical expenses. However, Vasquez later died on September 5, 1988, due to his injuries. Vasquez's parents, Vicente and Luisa Vasquez, filed an action for damages against Abad and Castilex. The trial court ruled in favor of the Vasquez spouses and ordered Abad and Castilex to pay damages. Both Abad and Castilex appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding Abad and Castilex liable, but reduced the award of damages. Castilex filed a petition for review, arguing that it should not be vicariously liable for Abad's negligence.
ISSUES:
- Whether an employer (Castilex Industrial Corporation) may be held vicariously liable for the death resulting from the negligent operation of a company-issued vehicle by a managerial employee (Jose Benjamin Abad).
RULING:
- No, Castilex Industrial Corporation may not be held vicariously liable. The Supreme Court ruled that Castilex Industrial Corporation could not be held vicariously liable for the negligence of Jose Benjamin Abad as he was not acting within the scope of his employment duties at the time of the accident.
PRINCIPLES:
-
Article 2180 of the Civil Code Differentiation between the fourth and fifth paragraphs concerning employer liability. The fourth paragraph applies to owners and managers engaged in business, while the fifth applies to employers in general.
-
Scope of Employment For an employer to be held liable under Article 2180, the employee must be shown to be acting within the scope of their assigned task at the time of the tort.
-
Application of the Fifth Paragraph of Article 2180 A managerial employee's actions are not automatically within the scope of employment solely because the incident involved a company-issued vehicle.
-
Burden of Proof The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to show that the employee was acting within the scope of his employment tasks for the employer to be liable.
-
American Jurisprudence on Employer Liability Principles from American jurisprudence were discussed, emphasizing that the use of a company vehicle outside regular working hours for personal purposes does not typically incur vicarious liability unless the employer derives some special benefit.
-
Doctrine of Respondeat Superior vs. Bonus Pater Familias The ruling differentiated between these doctrines and applied the principle of necessity of the employee acting within the employer's business or assigned tasks to attribute liability.
-
Presumption of Employer's Negligence This presumption arises only when it is established that the employee was within the scope of his employment during the incident.