FACTS:

This case involves a petition for review filed by the petitioner, seeking to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in a case for damages filed against the petitioner and one of its employees.

On the night of September 30, 1984, Teresa Elena Legarda-de los Santos, the wife of respondent Wilfredo de los Santos, performed at the Rizal Theater in Makati City as a member of the cast for the musical play Woman of the Year. After her performance, Wilfredo's brother Armando de los Santos went to the theater to fetch Teresa Elena using a company car assigned to Wilfredo, a 1980 Mitsubishi Galant Sigma with Plate No. NSL 559.

Two other members of the cast, Annabel Vilches and Jerome Macuja, joined Teresa Elena in the car. While traveling along the Katipunan Road, the car collided with a shuttle bus owned by the petitioner and driven by Alfredo S. Mejia, an employee of the petitioner. The car was dragged about 12 meters and caught fire, resulting in the death of all four occupants.

Criminal charges were filed against Mejia, but he was acquitted. The family of Annabel filed a civil case against the petitioner and Mejia, and Wilfredo and Carmina Vda. de los Santos, along with their minor children, also filed separate actions for damages. The cases were consolidated and after trial, the RTC ruled in favor of the respondents.

The RTC ordered the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. Q-44498 actual damages, compensatory damages, and unrealized income. In Civil Case No. Q-45602, the defendants were also ordered to pay actual damages, compensatory damages, and attorney's fees. Exemplary damages were not granted.

The petitioner appealed to the CA, which affirmed the RTC decision with modification on the amount of compensatory damages and unrealized income. The CA also denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Thus, the petitioner filed the present petition for review, contesting the CA's ruling on the negligence of Mejia, the lack of due diligence by the petitioner in the selection and supervision of its employees, and the damages awarded.

The respondents filed their comment, and the petitioner filed a reply. Both parties also filed their respective memoranda. The Court found that the petition lacked merit.

The case involves a vehicular accident where the petitioner, De los Santos, was driving a shuttle bus and the respondent, Mejia, was driving a car. De los Santos made a sudden turn along White Plains Road without exercising necessary care, while Mejia was driving at a speed of 70 kilometers per hour, which exceeded the allowed rate of speed of 50 kilometers per hour. The trial court concluded that Mejia was the negligent driver because he was traveling at an unlawful speed, causing the collision between the shuttle bus and the car. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, stating that the evidence, including the police accident report, investigation report, and the sketch of the accident, supported the conclusion that Mejia was driving at a reckless speed. The Court denied the petitioner's argument that the sudden turn of the victims' vehicle should also be considered negligence on their part, emphasizing that the negligence of one party does not absolve the negligence of the other. Thus, the Court concluded that Mejia was the negligent driver in this case.

ISSUES:

1. Whether Mejia was driving at an unlawful speed.

2. Whether petitioner exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees.

3. Whether the employer exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees.

4. Whether the employer submitted sufficient proof to overcome the presumption of negligence.

5. Whether the respondents were able to establish their case by a preponderance of evidence in order to recover actual damages.

6. Whether the award of P100,000.00 as moral damages is excessive.

RULING:

1. Mejia was driving at an unlawful speed. The evidence presented, such as the police accident report, investigation report, and sketch of the accident, proved that Mejia was traveling at a reckless speed that exceeded the maximum allowable speed for trucks and buses. Thus, the trial court did not err in concluding that Mejia was the negligent driver.

2. Petitioner did not exercise the due diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees. The employer has the burden of proving that it exercised proper diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. While the petitioner submitted various documents supporting its claim, such as Mejia's proficiency and physical examinations, and NBI clearances, the court found these pieces of evidence insufficient to prove proper diligence.

3. The employer failed to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. It did not present proof of the existence of rules and regulations governing the conduct of its employees. It also did not sufficiently prove that it exercised proper supervision over its employees, especially regarding rest periods for night shift drivers.

4. The employer did not submit sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of negligence. It merely presented evidence on the alleged care it took in the selection or hiring of the negligent employee, but failed to show compliance with company policies on efficiency and safety.

5. Yes, the respondents were able to establish their case by a preponderance of evidence. The Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals awarding actual damages to the respondents.

6. No, the award of P100,000.00 as moral damages is excessive. The Court reduced the amount to P50,000.00, which is in accordance with jurisprudence.

PRINCIPLES:

• The evidence presented must be considered as a whole in determining the negligence of a driver.

• A driver traveling at an unlawful speed forfeits any right of way.

• A person driving a vehicle is presumed negligent if he was violating a traffic regulation at the time of the accident.

• The driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident must stop immediately and render aid, unless in imminent danger, reporting the accident to the nearest officer of the law, or needing to summon a physician or nurse.

• An employer is presumed negligent in the selection and supervision of its employee if an injury is caused by the employee's negligence.

• The liability of the employer under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code is direct and immediate, and not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent employee or a showing of the employee's insolvency.

• In the selection of prospective employees, employers are required to examine their qualifications, experience, and service records.

• In the supervision of employees, employers must formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation, and impose disciplinary measures for breaches.

• Employers have the duty to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees. This includes the formulation of suitable rules and regulations for their guidance, the issuance of proper instructions, and the imposition of disciplinary measures when necessary.

• Employers must provide concrete proof, including documentary evidence, that they complied with their duty of due diligence in order to fend off vicarious liability.

• Mere allegation of the existence of company guidelines and policies on hiring and supervision is not enough to overcome the presumption of negligence. The burden of proof is on the employer to show that it has been diligent not only in the selection of employees but also in their actual supervision.

• In order for an injured party to recover actual damages, the actual amount of loss must be proven with a reasonable degree of certainty based on competent proof and the best evidence available.

• Actual damages cannot be presumed and must be supported by specific facts that provide a basis for measuring such damages.

• In determining the amount of damages, the court may consider jurisprudence as a guide.