View full case

RAYMUNDO ODANI SECOSA v. HEIRS OF ERWIN SUAREZ FRANCISCO

FACTS:

On June 27, 1996, Erwin Suarez Francisco, a student, was riding a motorcycle when he was hit by an Isuzu cargo truck driven by petitioner Raymundo Odani Secosa. Francisco died instantly after the truck ran over him. Petitioner Secosa fled the scene of the collision. The parents of Francisco filed an action for damages against Secosa, Dassad Warehousing and Port Services, Inc., and Dassad's president, El Buenasucenso Sy. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents and ordered the defendants to pay damages. Petitioners appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision. Petitioners now seek the reversal of the appellate court's decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the defendant company exercised the requisite diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employee.

  2. Whether the defendant company presented sufficient evidence to support its claim of due diligence.

  3. Whether the veil of corporate fiction should be pierced to hold the president of Dassad Warehousing and Port Services, Inc. solidarily liable with the corporation.

  4. Whether the award of moral damages to the parents of the deceased is justified.

RULING:

  1. The court held that the defendant company did not exercise the requisite diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employee. The court stated that the evidence presented by the defendant company was not legally sufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence against it.

  2. The court ruled that the defendant company failed to support its testimonial evidence with concrete or documentary evidence. The court emphasized the need for the employer to present documentary proof to obviate the biased nature of the testimonial evidence.

  3. The records of the case do not show any evidence to justify the piercing of the veil of corporate fiction. Therefore, the president of Dassad Warehousing and Port Services, Inc. is not held solidarily liable with the corporation.

  4. The award of moral damages to the parents of the deceased is justified. Under Article 2206, spouses, legitimate and illegitimate descendants, and ascendants of the deceased can demand moral damages for mental anguish. The pain experienced by the parents is proportionate to their affection for their son and is not related to the wealth of the offender. In this case, the parents presented evidence of the searing pain they felt due to the untimely death of their son. Thus, the award of P500,000.00 as moral damages is affirmed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • There is no hard-and-fast rule on the quantum of evidence needed to prove due observance of diligence in the selection and supervision of employees.

  • Employers are required to examine prospective employees as to their qualifications, experience, and service records.

  • Employers should formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation, and impose disciplinary measures for breaches thereof.

  • Employers must submit concrete proof, including documentary evidence, to establish their diligence in the selection and supervision of employees.

  • The failure to present documentary proof puts in doubt the credibility of the employer's witnesses.

  • The employer's testimonial evidence must be supported by concrete or documentary evidence.

  • The separate corporate personality of a corporation is recognized, except when it is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, defend crime, or work inequities among members of the corporation internally.

  • The veil of corporate fiction may be pierced when the corporation is used to perpetuate fraud, or when it is established that the separate juridical personality is being abused or used for wrongful purposes.

  • To disregard the separate juridical personality of a corporation, the wrongdoing must be clearly and convincingly established. It cannot be presumed.

  • Moral damages are awarded to restore, within the limits possible, the spiritual status quo ante and must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted.

  • Moral damages are not intended to enrich the plaintiff but to alleviate the moral suffering undergone due to the defendant's culpable action.