FACTS:

The case involves a vehicular collision between a Toyota Altis Sedan owned by C.O.L. Realty Corporation and driven by Aquilino Larin, and a Ford Expedition owned by Lambert Ramos and driven by Rodel Ilustrisimo. The collision occurred at around 10:40 in the morning of March 8, 2004, along Katipunan Avenue in Quezon City. Estela Maliwat, a passenger of the sedan, sustained injuries and was rushed to the hospital for treatment.

C.O.L. Realty claimed that their driver, Aquilino, was driving the Toyota Altis at a slow speed along Rajah Matanda Street when Ramos' Ford Expedition violently collided with the sedan's right rear door and fender. The force of the impact caused the sedan to turn 180 degrees in the opposite direction.

An investigation by the Office of the City Prosecutor found probable cause to indict Rodel, the driver of the Ford Expedition, for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property. C.O.L. Realty demanded reimbursement from Ramos for the expenses incurred in repairing their car and hospitalizing Estela, but the demand was ignored.

C.O.L. Realty filed a Complaint for Damages based on quasi-delict before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City. The MeTC dismissed the case, finding no merit to C.O.L. Realty's claims. The decision was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals.

C.O.L. Realty appealed to the Court of Appeals, which modified the RTC decision and held both Lambert Ramos and Rodel Ilustrisimo solidarily liable with C.O.L. Realty for the amount of P51,994.80 as actual damages. Exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and cost of suit were dismissed for lack of merit. C.O.L. Realty filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Hence, the present petition before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not C.O.L. Realty is liable for negligence in the vehicular mishap.

2. Whether or not Ramos is liable for the contributory negligence of his driver.

3. Whether or not Ramos also failed to exercise due care in the selection and supervision of his driver.

4. Whether the respondent is entitled to recover damages from the accident despite his own contributory negligence.

RULING:

1. Yes, C.O.L. Realty is liable for negligence in the vehicular mishap.

2. Yes, Ramos is liable for the contributory negligence of his driver.

3. Yes, Ramos also failed to exercise due care in the selection and supervision of his driver.

4. No, the respondent is not entitled to recover damages from the accident due to his own contributory negligence. The Supreme Court held that Aquilino’s act of crossing Katipunan Avenue, which was prohibited by law, constituted negligence and was the proximate cause of the accident. Under Article 2179 of the Civil Code, when the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. The Court further stated that the respondent’s contributory negligence, even if present, could not overcome or defeat Aquilino’s recklessness, which was the immediate and proximate cause of the accident. The respondent’s contributory negligence would only serve to mitigate the damages that may be awarded in his favor. Therefore, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the decision of the Regional Trial Court dismissing the respondent’s complaint for damages.

PRINCIPLES:

• Article 2185 of the Civil Code: Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.

• Employers must rebut the presumption of negligence by presenting adequate and convincing proof that they exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees.

• Employers are required to examine prospective employees as to their qualifications, experience, and service records, and to formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation, and impose disciplinary measures for their breach.