View full case

STEPHEN CANG v. HERMINIA CULLEN

FACTS:

On October 29, 1996, a vehicular accident occurred between a taxicab and a motorcycle along P. del Rosario Street, Cebu City. The taxicab, owned by petitioner Stephen Cang and driven by petitioner George Nardo, sideswiped the motorcycle owned by respondent Herminia Cullen and driven by Guillermo Saycon. Respondent alleged that the taxi veered to the right and collided with the motorcycle before attempting to flee the scene. Saycon sustained serious injuries as a result of the collision. Respondent paid for Saycon's hospital and medical expenses and provided financial support because Saycon was unable to work. Respondent filed a complaint for damages against the petitioners, seeking compensation for the expenses incurred and other damages. Petitioners denied liability and claimed that it was the motorcycle that bumped into the taxi. The trial court initially dismissed the complaint, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and ordered petitioners to pay the respondent actual and exemplary damages. Petitioners now seek the reversal of the CA decision.

An eyewitness named Ike Aldemita testified that the taxi driver, Nardo, had overtaken the motorcycle and was therefore the negligent party. However, the trial court disregarded Aldemita's testimony due to inconsistencies. Aldemita initially claimed that the motorcycle was ahead of the taxi but later stated that they were beside each other. The court also questioned Aldemita's claim that the motorcycle fell on its side after being hit, as the impact should have caused more damage. Furthermore, Aldemita's proximity to the accident scene and contradictory statements raised doubts about the accuracy of his testimony. The Court of Appeals, however, relied on Aldemita's testimony and upheld the finding of negligence against Nardo. Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing that the CA erred in giving weight to Aldemita's testimony and in awarding damages to the respondent.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Aldemita's testimony is credible and reliable.

  2. Whether the trial court's assessment of Nardo's testimony as more credible is correct.

  3. Whether Saycon, the driver of the motorcycle, was negligent at the time of the accident.

  4. Whether the respondent, as Saycon's employer, is entitled to claim damages.

  5. Whether the employer can be held liable for damages caused by their employee's negligence.

  6. Whether the employer in this case exercised the degree of diligence required in supervising their employee.

RULING:

  1. The court finds Aldemita's testimony to be uncertain and filled with inconsistencies. The court believes that Aldemita either did not see the whole incident or was lying. Therefore, the court cannot give much weight to his testimony.

  2. The trial court's assessment of Nardo's testimony as more credible is upheld. The trial court had the unique opportunity to observe the witness firsthand and note his demeanor, conduct, and attitude under examination. The trial court's findings of credibility are accorded great weight and respect. Absent any showing that the trial court's calibration of credibility was flawed, the court is bound by its assessment.

  3. Yes, Saycon was negligent at the time of the accident. He violated traffic regulations by driving alone with only a student driver's permit, not wearing a helmet, and speeding. The evidence presented in court shows that he failed to exercise the reasonable care and caution that an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation. Therefore, the trial court concluded that Saycon was negligent.

  4. The respondent, as Saycon's employer, is not entitled to claim damages. Saycon, being the negligent party, would not have been entitled to recover damages from the petitioners had he filed his own action. Since the accidents were caused solely by Saycon's negligence, the respondent, as his employer, is likewise not entitled to claim for damages.

  5. Yes, the employer can be held liable for damages caused by their employee's negligence. Article 2180 of the Civil Code provides that employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees while in the performance of their duties or on the occasion of their functions, except when the employer proves that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. The employer's liability is based on the presumption that the employer is negligent, which can only be rebutted by proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a family.

  6. In this case, the employer failed to exercise the degree of diligence required in supervising their employee. It was shown that the employee, who only had a student's permit, was driving alone. This act alone was enough to prove that the employer was negligent either by not knowing the employee's lack of qualifications or by allowing the employee to drive alone despite this deficiency. As a result, the employer cannot recover damages from the incident.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are given great weight and respect, as the trial judge has the unique opportunity to observe the witness firsthand.

  • The trial court's assessment of witness credibility will be upheld unless it can be shown that the trial court ignored, overlooked, misunderstood, misappreciated, or misapplied substantial facts and circumstances that would materially affect the case's result.

  • Negligence is the omission of that diligence required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, time, and place. It is conduct that creates an undue risk of harm to others and the failure to observe the degree of care, precaution, and vigilance that the circumstances justly demand.

  • To determine whether there is negligence in a given situation, the test is whether the defendant used the reasonable care and caution that an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation.

  • In cases where the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. However, if the plaintiff's negligence was only contributory and the defendant's lack of due care was the immediate and proximate cause of the injury, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the court shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.

  • The employer can be held liable for damages caused by the employee's negligence within the scope of their assigned tasks, even if the employer is not engaged in any business or industry.

  • Article 2180 of the Civil Code imposes liability on employers for damages caused by their employees.

  • The employer's liability is based on the presumption of employer negligence, rebuttable only by proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a family.

  • Employers are required to examine prospective employees in terms of their qualifications, experience, and service records during the selection process.

  • Employers must also exercise supervision over their employees by formulating standard operating procedures, monitoring their implementation, and imposing disciplinary measures for breaches thereof.

  • Negligence on the part of the employer in supervising their employee can result in the denial of their claim for damages.