Showing posts with label G.R. No. 224186. Show all posts
Showing posts with label G.R. No. 224186. Show all posts

Spouses Mangaron v. Hanna Via Design & Construction

 Spouses Mangaron v. Hanna Via Design & Construction, 

G.R. No. 224186, 

September 23, 2019


DOCTRINE: In accordance with the law on compulsory motor vehicle registration, this

Court has consistently ruled that, with respect to the public and third persons, the

registered owner of a motor vehicle is directly and primarily responsible for the

consequences of its operation regardless of who the actual vehicle owner might be.


FACTS: Petitioners filed a complaint for damages under Article 2184 in relation to Article

2180 of the Civil Code against respondents. In said complaint, Sps. Mangaron invoked

respondent's vicarious liability for the negligent driving of their company driver, Crestino

T. Bosquit, of an Isuzu Truck with Plate Number PLM 612, which bumped and dragged

their vehicle, a Ford Ranger Pick-Up with Plate Number XJZ 830. The collision caused

serious physical injuries to petitioners and were confined for a whole month at the Davao

Doctors Hospital in Davao City.


After the petitioners presented their evidence and rested their case, respondent filed a

Motion for Demurrer to Evidence. Respondent questioned the jurisdiction of the RTC over

the case, contending that the complaint is actually a criminal action for reckless

imprudence resulting to physical injuries. Thus, the complaint should have been filed in

Davao City where the vehicular incident happened.

The Regional Trial Court of Malolos denied the motion. The RTC held that the ownership

of the subject vehicle, respondent's working relationship with Bosquit, and its culpability,

are matters of evidence. Moreover, the RTC maintained its jurisdiction over the case as

the case is clearly civil in nature, a complaint for damages.

Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. Respondent then filed

a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, impugning the jurisdiction of the RTC.

The CA upheld the jurisdiction of the RTC as the complaint spelled out a civil complaint

for damages. However, the CA reversed the ruling of the RTC insofar as the denial of

respondent's demurrer to evidence. It ruled that the RTC committed grave abuse of

discretion and opined that the case should have been dismissed because the registered

owner of the Isuzu Truck is Power Supply, and not the respondent.

Petitioners then filed a Motion for Reconsideration, hence this petition.


ISSUES: Whether or not the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the

demurrer to evidence.


HELD: Yes. The Court agrees with the CA in finding that the denial of the motion for

demurrer to evidence was tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The CA essentially

found that the RTC failed to consider the application of the registered owner rule. In

accordance with the law on compulsory motor vehicle registration, this Court has

consistently ruled that, with respect to the public and third persons, the registered owner

of a motor vehicle is directly and primarily responsible for the consequences of its

operation regardless of who the actual vehicle owner might be.


On this note, the Court stresses that the registered owner rule is clear and straightforward.

Its rationale is to fix liability on the owner of a motor vehicle involved in an accident by

clear identification through registration. The main aim of motor vehicle registration is to

identify the owner so that if any accident happens, or that any damage or injury is caused

by the vehicle on the public highways, responsibility therefore can be fixed on a definite

individual, the registered owner.

Truly, what the law seeks to prevent is the avoidance of liability in case of accidents to

the detriment of the public. In case an accident occurs, the liability becomes definite and

fixed as against a specific person, so that the victim may be properly indemnified without

having to go through the rigorous and tedious task of trying to identify the owner or driver

of the concerned vehicle.


Thus, the registration of the vehicle's ownership is indispensable in determining

imputation of liability; thus, whoever has his/her name on the Certificate of Registration

of the offending vehicle becomes liable in case of any damage or injury in connection with

the operation of such vehicle inasmuch as the public is concerned.

As between the registered owner and the driver, the former is considered as the employer

of the latter, and is made primarily liable for the tort under Article 2176 in relation with

Article 2180 of the Civil Code.


However, the application of the registered owner rule does not serve as a shield of the

offending vehicle's real owner from any liability. The law is not inequitable. Under the

principle of unjust enrichment, the registered owner who shouldered such liability has a

right to be indemnified by means of a cross-claim as against the actual employer of the

negligent driver. In this way, the preservation of the rights of the parties concerned would

be upheld while championing the public policy behind the registered owner rule.