Caravan Travel and Tours v. Abejar

 Caravan Travel and Tours v. Abejar, 

G.R. No. 170631, 

February 10, 2016.

DOCTRINE: In cases where both the registered-owner rule and Article 2180 apply, the

plaintiff must first establish that the employer is the registered owner of the vehicle in

question. Once the plaintiff successfully proves ownership, there arises a disputable

presumption that the requirements of Article 2180 have been proven. The burden of proof

shifts to the defendant to show that no liability under Article 2180 has arisen.

FACTS:

Jesmarian Reyes was walking along the west-bound land of Sampaguita Street,

Paranaque City. An L-300 Mitsubishi van was travelling along the west-bound lane,

opposite Reyes. To avoid an incoming traffic, the van swerved to its left and hit Reyes.

Alex Espinosa went to her aid and loaded her in the back of the van. He told the driver of

the van, Jimmy Bautista (Bautista), to bring Reyes to the hospital. However, he has left

the van parked inside a nearby subdivision with Reyes still in the van. Fortunately, an

unidentified civilian came to help Reyes. Caravan, a corporation engaged in the business

of organizing travels and tours, was the registered owner of the van driven by Bautista

who is Caravan’s employee working as its service driver. It shouldered the hospitalization

expenses of Reyes, but Reyes died two (2) days after the accident. Abejar, Reyes’

paternal aunt and the person who raised here since nine (9) years old, filed a complaint

for damages against Bautista and Caravan, alleging that Bautista is the driver of the van

and Caravan is the registered owner of the said van that hit her niece. Summons could

not be served on Bautista, thus Abejar moved to drop Bautista as a defendant which was

granted. 

The RTC found Bautista was grossly negligent in driving the vehicle and

awarded damages in favor of Abejar. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC

with modification. Caravan argued that Abejar offered no documentary or testimonial

evidence to prove that Bautista acted within the scope of his assigned tasks when the

accident occurred. According to Caravan, Bautista’s tasks only pertained to the transport

of company personnel or products, and when the accident occurred, he had not been

transporting personnel or delivering products of and for the company. It also argued that

it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervisions of

its employees. It further claims that it should not be held solidarily liable with Bautista

since he was already dropped as a party. Abejar counters that Caravan failed to provide

proof that it exercised the requisite diligence in the selection and supervision of Bautista.

She further argued that since Caravan is the registered owner of the van, it is directly,

primarily and solidarily liable for the tortious acts of its driver.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Caravan should be held liable as an employer pursuant to Article 2180 of

the Civil Code.

HELD:

Yes, Caravan is liable for quasi-delict pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code. It was

not fatal to Abejar’s cause that she did not adduce proof that Bautista acted within the

scope of his authority, it was sufficient that Caravan was proven as the registered owner

of the van that hit Reyes. In cases where both the registered-owner rule and Article 2180

apply, the plaintiff must first establish that the employer is the registered owner of the

vehicle in question. Once the plaintiff successfully proves ownership, there arises a

disputable presumption that the requirements of Article 2180 have been proven.

Therefore, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to show that no liability under Article

2180 has arisen. In this case, Caravan admitted that Bautista was its employee at the

time of the accident, however it was unable to prove that Bautista was acting outside the

scope of his assigned tasks. It presented no positive evidence to show that Bautista was

acting in his private capacity at the time of the incident. Furthermore, it failed to prove that

it exercises the requisite diligence as it claimed that it employed a person holding a

nonprofessional driver’s license to operated another’s motor vehicle in violation of the

Land Transportation and Traffic Code.