Metro Manila Transit Co. v.

CA

FACTS
 About 6am on August 28, 1979, Custodio boarded a jeepney driven by Calebag and owned by Lamayo
bound to her workplace, Dynetics Inc., Taguig.
o While the jeepney was travelling a fast clip along DBP Ave, Bicutan, another fast moving
vehicle, Metro Manila Transit Corp. driven by Leonardo and was negotiating Honeydew Rd in
Bicutan bound for its terminal at Bicutan. As both vehicles approached the intersection of DBP
Avenue and Honeydew Road they failed to slow down and slacken their speed; neither did they
blow their horns to warn approaching vehicles. As a consequence, a collision between them
occurred, the jeepney ramming the left side portion of the MMTC bus.
o The collision impact caused Custodio to hit the front windshield of the jeepney was thrown out
therefrom, falling onto the pavement unconscious with serious physical injuries. She was
brought to the Medical City Hospital where she regained consciousness only after one (1) week.
Thereat, she was confined for 24 days, and as a consequence, she was unable to work for
three and one half months.
o A complaint for damages was filed subsequently by the respondent who was a minor, assisted
by her parents following their refusal to pay the expenses incurred by MMTC as a result of the
collision.
 RTC: found both drivers concurrently negligent.
o MMTC presented its training officer and its transport supervisor who respectively testified that it
was not only careful and diligent in choosing and screening applicants for job
openings, but was also strict and diligent in supervising its employees by seeing
to it that its employees were in proper uniforms, briefed in traffic rules and
regulations before the start of duty, and that it checked its employees to determine
whether they were positive for alcohol and that they followed other rules and
regulations of the Bureau of Land Transportation and of the company.
o As joint tortfeasors, both drivers, as well as Lamayo(owner of the jeepney) were held solidarily
liable for damages sustained by Custodio. MMTC was absolved on the ground that it exercised
diligence of a good father of a family in selecting and supervising its employees.
 CA: modified RTC's decision by holding MMTC solidarily liable with the other defendants for concurrent
negligence.
o While there is no hard and fast rule as to what constitutes sufficient evidence to prove that an
employer has exercised the due diligence required of it in the selection and supervision of its
employees, based on the quantum of evidence adduced the said appellate court was not
disposed to say that MMTC had exercised the diligence required of a good father of a family in
the selection and supervision of its driver.

ISSUES + RULING

[Procedural] Re: MR and R45

 In the case of a petition for review on certiorari from a decision rendered by the Court of Appeals,
Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, it is to be filed “within 15 days from notice of judgment or of
the denial of the motion for reconsideration filed in due time, and paying at the same time the
corresponding docket fee.”
 In other words, in the event a motion for reconsideration is filed and denied, the fresh period of 15 days
begins to run all over again from notice of the denial resolution.
 If a motion for reconsideration is filed, the reglementary period within which to appeal the decision of
the CA to the SC is reckoned from the date the party who intends to appeal received the order denying
the motion for reconsideration. Furthermore, a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review
may be filed with this Court within said reglementary period, paying at the same time the corresponding
docket fee.

Did MMTC exercise due diligence? NO.

  Petitioner's attempt to prove its diligentissimi patris familias(diligence of a good father of the family) in
the selection and supervision of employees through oral evidence must fail as it was unable to buttress
the same with any other evidence, object or documentary, which might obviate the apparent biased
nature of the testimony.
 The mere formulation of various company policies on safety without showing that they were being
complied with is not sufficient to exempt petitioner from liability arising from negligence of its
employees. It is incumbent upon petitioner to show that in recruiting and employing the erring driver the
recruitment procedures and company policies on efficiency and safety were followed.

Should MMTC be held solidarily liable with the other defendants? YES.
 It is within Article 2176 and 2177, in relation to Article 2180, of the Civil Code provisions on quasi-
delicts as all the elements thereof are present, to wit: (1) damages suffered by the plaintiff, (2) fault or
negligence of the defendant or some other person for whose act he must respond, and (3) the
connection of cause and effect between fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred
by plaintiff.
o The basis of the employer's vicarious liability has been explained under this ratiocination: The
responsibility imposed by this article arises by virtue of a presumption juris tantum of negligence
on the part of the persons made responsible under the article, derived from their failure to
exercise due care and vigilance over the acts of subordinates to prevent them from causing
damage.
o Negligence is imputed to them by law, unless they prove the contrary. It is clear that it is the
non-performance of certain duties of precaution and prudence imposed upon the persons who
become responsible by civil bond uniting the actor to them, which forms the foundation of such
responsibility.
o The above rule is applicable only where there is an employer-employee relationship, although it
is not necessary that the employer be engaged in business or industry. Whether or not engaged
in any business or industry, the employer under Article 2180 is liable for torts committed by his
employees within the scope of their assigned tasks. But, it is necessary first to establish the
employment relationship. Once this is done, the plaintiff must show, to hold the employer liable,
that the employee was acting within the scope of his assigned task when the tort complained of
was committed. It is only then that the defendant, as employer, may find it necessary to
interpose the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees. The
diligence of a good father of a family required to be observed by employers to prevent damages
under Article 2180 refers to due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees in order
to protect the public.
 With the allegation and subsequent proof of negligence against the defendant driver and of an
employer-employee relation between him and his co-defendant MMTC, it is undoubtedly based on
aquasi-delict under Article 2180. CA was then correct in ruling that "due diligence in the selection and
supervision of employee (is) not proved by mere testimonies to the effect that its applicant has
complied with all the company requirements before one is admitted as an employee but without proof
thereof."
 Hence, MMTC fell short of the required evidentiary quantum as would convincingly and undoubtedly
prove its diligence.