View full case

R TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. LUISITO G. YU

FACTS:

On December 12, 1993, Loreta Yu was hit and run over by a bus driven by Antonio Gimena, who was employed by R Transport Corporation. Loreta died upon arrival at the hospital. Luisito Yu, the husband of the deceased, filed a complaint for damages against R Transport, Gimena, and Metro Manila Transport Corporation (MMTC) for the death of his wife. MMTC argued that it should not be held liable as it was only the registered owner of the bus and not the actual owner. R Transport claimed that it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) held R Transport and MMTC solidarily liable for damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, ruling that R Transport, as the employer of Gimena, could be held liable for the damage caused. Petitioner R Transport filed a petition for review on certiorari to reverse and set aside the decision and resolution of the CA.

ISSUES:

  1. Was driver Gimena negligent in hitting and running over the victim?

  2. Was Gimena's negligence the proximate cause of the victim's death?

  3. Is the petitioner, as the employer of Gimena, liable for the damages caused by his negligence?

  4. Did the petitioner exercise the required diligence in the selection and supervision of its employee?

  5. Is the petitioner solidarily liable with MMTC, the registered owner of the bus?

  6. Whether the liability of the registered owner and the actual owner and operator of a vehicle is solidary under Article 2194 of the Civil Code.

  7. How should the registered owner participate in the damages recoverable by the heirs of a deceased passenger if their liability is not that of joint tortfeasors.

RULING:

  1. Yes, driver Gimena was found negligent in hitting and running over the victim.

  2. Yes, Gimena's negligence was the proximate cause of the victim's death.

  3. Yes, the petitioner, as the employer of Gimena, is liable for the damages caused by his negligence.

  4. No, the petitioner failed to exercise the required diligence in the selection and supervision of its employee.

  5. Yes, the petitioner is solidarily liable with MMTC, the registered owner of the bus.

  6. The liability of the registered owner and the actual owner and operator of a vehicle is not solidary under Article 2194 of the Civil Code. The case at hand involves a breach of contract for failure to carry safely a passenger to her destination. The liability for the death of the passenger in such cases is not that of a quasi-delict but arises from the breach of the contract of carriage.

  7. The registered owner, as the holder of the certificate of public convenience, should be directly responsible to the public or any passenger riding in the vehicle. On the other hand, the transferee, who operated the vehicle at the time of the accident and death, should be responsible to the registered owner for any damages caused by his/her negligence. However, in the present case, where the liability arises from a tort or quasi-delict, the registered owner cannot escape its solidary liability with the actual operator. The liability of an employer for the negligent conduct of its employees is direct and primary, subject only to the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Negligence is the failure to observe the degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances demand and results in injury to another person. Foreseeability is the fundamental test of negligence.

  • Employers are liable for the damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. Once negligence on the part of the employee is established, there is a presumption of the employer's remissness in the selection and supervision of the negligent employee.

  • To avoid liability, the employer must present adequate and convincing proof that it exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees.

  • The registered owner or operator of a passenger vehicle is jointly and severally liable with the driver for damages incurred by passengers or third persons as a consequence of injuries or death sustained in the operation of the said vehicle. The actual owner is still liable and may be indemnified by the registered owner or operator. Recovery by the registered owner or operator may be made through a cross-claim, third-party complaint, or an independent action.

  • The liability of the registered owner and the actual owner and operator of a vehicle depends on the nature of the claim, whether it is a breach of contract or a tort/quasi-delict.

  • The registered owner should be directly responsible to the public or any passenger riding in the vehicle.

  • The actual operator should be responsible to the registered owner for any damages caused by his/her negligence.

  • The liability of an employer for the negligent conduct of its employees is direct and primary, subject only to the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee.

  • The principle of holding the registered owner liable for damages is designed to protect the public and prevent unscrupulous transferees of the vehicle from escaping liability for their own negligent acts.