Heirs of Mendoza v. ES Trucking and Forwarders

 Heirs of Mendoza v. ES Trucking and Forwarders, 

G.R. No. 243237, 

February 17, 2020

DOCTRINES:

1. Civil actions referred to in Articles 31, 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the New Civil Code

shall "proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a

preponderance of evidence."

2. The basis for the liability of an employer of an erring driver resulting to injury or

damage to a stranger may be found in Articles 2176 and 2180 of the New Civil

Code. The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons

herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a

family to prevent damage. Vicarious liabilty is based on the civil law principle

of paterfamilias for failure to exercise due care and vigilance over the acts of one's

subordinates to prevent damage to another.

FACTS:

Catalina P. Mendoza (Catalina), while attempting toc ross the street to a nearby lotto

outlet, was sideswiped by a 14-wheeler prime mover truck at the junction of Gov. Ramos

Street and Sta. Maria Road in Zamboanga City. The vehicle is registered under the name

of ES Trucking and Forwarders (ES Trucking) with Sumarni Asprer Ruste as its sole

proprietor. At the time of the incident, the truck, being driven by Clin Timtim, was on its

way back to San Roque after having delivered kitchenware merchandise to its customer,

Suani Enterprises. Catalina’s sons brought her to Ciudad Medical Zamboanga where she

was pronounced dead.

The Municipal Trial Court in the Cities convicted Timtim of Reckless Imprudence resulting

to Homicide. The RTC and the CA found no evidence of recklessness that can be

attributed to the driver. The CA further ruled that the previous criminal conviction of Timtim

automatically establishes the civil liability of ES Trucking; the company may set up the

defense that it employed due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees.

In this present petition for review, petitioner Heirs of Catalina argues that ES Trucking did

not exercise due diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of

the driver because it hired a driver who did not have the necessary training for driving a

trailer truck pursuant to Department Order No. 2011-25 issued by Department of

Transportation (DOTr).

ISSUES

1. Whether or not the complaint for quasi-delict against ES Trucking, Timtim's

employer, may proceed independently of the criminal action for Reckless

Imprudence resulting to Homicide.

2. Whether or not ES Trucking is liable under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code.

HELD:

1. YES. Civil actions referred to in Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the New Civil Code

shall "proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a

preponderance of evidence." Furthermore, it is explicitly stated in Article 2177 of the

Civil Code that responsibility arising from quasi-delict "is entirely separate and distinct

from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code." The same rule

finds support from Article 31 of the same Code which states that when "the civil action

is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a

felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and

regardless of the result of the latter."

Therefore, regardless of the outcome of the criminal case for reckless imprudence

resulting to homicide instituted against Timtim, a civil case for quasi-delict may

proceed independently against Timtim's employer, ES Trucking, under Article 2180 of

the New Civil Code.

2. YES. The basis for the liability of an employer of an erring driver resulting to injury or

damage to a stranger may be found in Articles 2176 and 2180 of the New Civil Code.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein

mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to

prevent damage.

In this case, it has been proven by preponderant evidence that Timtim recklessly drove

the prime mover truck which caused the death of Catalina. Although the employer is

not the actual tortfeasor, the law makes the employer vicariously liable on the basis of

the civil law principle of paterfamilias for failure to exercise due care and vigilance over

the acts of one's subordinates to prevent damage to another.

The SC found find that ES Trucking failed to sufficiently exercise the diligence of a

good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employee, Timtim.

In the selection of its prospective employees, the employer is required to examine

them as to their qualifications, experience, and service records. From the crossexamination

of a certain Edgardo Ruste, it appears that ES Trucking did not require

Timtim to present any document other than his professional driver's license and job

application form. It was also established in the same testimony that ES Trucking did

not present any evidence to prove that he was certified to drive a prime mover truck

by Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA); they did not also

bother to check whether

Timtim has records with the police or NBI, or attended the training and seminar for

transport management and road safety.

ES Trucking was not only negligent in hiring Timtim but even in supervising the latter.

ES Trucking permitted Timtim to drive the subject vehicle to transport goods of its

customers knowing that the vehicle is not duly registered with the LTFRB and that it

did not successfully obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience.

Hence, ES Trucking was held vicariously liable pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil

Code and liable to pay damages to the Heirs of Catalina Mendoza.