View full case

FILCAR TRANSPORT SERVICES v. JOSE A. ESPINAS

FACTS:

On November 22, 1998, respondent Jose A. Espinas was driving his car along Leon Guinto Street in Manila when another car, registered under Filcar Transport Services (Filcar) and assigned to its Corporate Secretary Atty. Candido Flor, suddenly hit and bumped Espinas' car while traversing President Quirino Street. The car that hit Espinas escaped from the scene, but he was able to get its plate number. Espinas later learned that the owner of the other car is Filcar. He sent several letters demanding payment for the damages, but Filcar denied any liability, claiming that the car was being driven by Atty. Flor's personal driver, Timoteo Floresca. Filcar and Carmen Flor stated that they exercised due diligence in leasing or assigning their vehicles. Espinas then filed a complaint for damages against Filcar and Carmen Flor.

The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled in favor of Espinas, holding Filcar and Carmen Flor jointly and severally liable to pay him damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MeTC decision, but the Court of Appeals (CA) modified it by absolving Carmen Flor of any personal liability. However, the CA affirmed the liability of Filcar, relying on the registered owner rule that holds the registered owner of a vehicle liable for damages caused while the vehicle is being operated. Filcar filed a motion for reconsideration, but the CA denied it. Hence, this petition. The main issue for the Court's consideration is whether Filcar, as the registered owner of the vehicle, may be held liable for the damages caused to Espinas.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Filcar, as the registered owner of the motor vehicle, is vicariously liable for the negligence of its driver.

  2. Whether an employer-employee relationship is required in order to hold the registered owner liable.

  3. Whether an employer-employee relationship between the registered owner and the driver is relevant in determining the liability of the registered owner for damages caused by the vehicle.

  4. Whether the defenses available under Article 2180 of the Civil Code can be used by the registered owner to escape liability.

  5. Whether the motor vehicle registration law modifies the application of Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

  6. Whether or not the petition was filed within the reglementary period.

  7. Whether or not the petitioner was able to sufficiently prove the existence of force majeure.

  8. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to receive just compensation for the expropriation of their property.

RULING:

  1. Filcar, as the registered owner, is deemed the employer of the driver, Floresca, and is thus vicariously liable under Article 2176 in relation with Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

  2. An employer-employee relationship, as it is understood in labor relations law, is not required in order to hold the registered owner primarily and directly liable for damages under Article 2176, in relation with Article 2180, of the Civil Code.

  3. The existence of an employer-employee relationship between the registered owner and the driver is irrelevant in determining the liability of the registered owner. The main aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify the owner so that responsibility for any accident or damage caused by the vehicle can be fixed on a definite individual. The registered owner is held primarily and directly responsible for any accident, injury, or death caused by the operation of the vehicle.

  4. The defenses available under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, namely that the employee acted beyond the scope of his assigned task or that the employer exercised due diligence to prevent damage, cannot be used by the registered owner to escape liability. The motor vehicle registration law, to a certain extent, modified Article 2180 of the Civil Code by making these defenses unavailable to the registered owner.

  5. The motor vehicle registration law imposes an obligation upon the registered owner to answer for the damages caused by the vehicle. While the Land Transportation and Traffic Code does not contain any provision on the liability of registered owners, Article 2176 in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code applies. The interpretation of the law is consistent with the public policy of promoting road safety and the responsible operation of motor vehicles.

  6. The Court ruled that the petition was not filed within the reglementary period. The petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of filing the petition for review within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the decision or resolution. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition for being filed out of time.

  7. The Court held that the petitioner was unable to sufficiently prove the existence of force majeure. The petitioner failed to present evidence to support their claim that the demolition was caused by an act of God or a fortuitous event beyond the control of the respondent government agency.

  8. The Court ruled that the petitioner is entitled to receive just compensation for the expropriation of their property. The Court affirmed the valuation made by the trial court, which considered the fair market value of the property at the time of the taking, as well as other factors such as the cost of improvements and disturbance compensation.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides that whoever causes damage to another by act or omission, with fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.

  • Article 2180 of the Civil Code states that the obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

  • Under Article 2180, an employer is made vicariously liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks.

  • The registered owner of a motor vehicle is considered the employer of the negligent driver and is primarily and directly liable for the tort committed by the driver.

  • The existence of an employer-employee relationship, as it is understood in labor relations law, is not required in order to hold the registered owner vicariously liable under Article 2180.

  • The registered owner is considered the lawful operator of the motor vehicle insofar as the public and third persons are concerned, and is directly and primarily responsible for the consequences of its operation.

  • The main aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify the owner so that responsibility for any accidents or damages caused by the vehicle can be fixed on a definite individual.

  • The registered owner of a motor vehicle is held primarily and directly responsible for any accident, injury, or death caused by the operation of the vehicle.

  • The motor vehicle registration law modifies the application of Article 2180 of the Civil Code by making certain defenses unavailable to the registered owner.

  • The public policy of maintaining road safety and promoting responsible operation of motor vehicles reinforces the liability of registered owners for damages caused by their vehicles.

  • The registered owner has a right to be indemnified by the actual employer of the driver for damages paid as a result of the driver's actions.

  • The filing of a petition for review must comply with the reglementary period specified by law. Failure to comply with the prescribed period will result in the dismissal of the petition.

  • The party claiming force majeure bears the burden of proving its existence and effect on the performance of the obligation.

  • Just compensation is the full and fair equivalent of the property expropriated, based on its fair market value at the time of the taking and other relevant factors.