Francisco v. De la Serna
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff-appellant Felicidad Francisco instituted an action to recover damages amounting to P5,000 from defendants-appellees Carmelino de la Serna and Southern Motors, Inc. for breach of contract of carriage. Francisco alleged that while she was a passenger in a truck operated by de la Serna, the truck collided with a truck owned by Southern Motors, Inc., causing her physical injuries. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental found that the truck of Carmelino de la Serna, in which the plaintiff was riding, was completely stopped when another truck, bearing plate No. A-59 and driven by Vicente Fernandez, zigzagged and hit the front of de la Serna's truck. The court also found that the truck with plate No. A-659 was issued to Southern Motors, Inc. in 1956, but was sold by Southern Motors, Inc. to Roberto Bolneo on an installment basis, with Bolneo mortgaging it back to Southern Motors, Inc. The court held that Bolneo owned the truck and was the employer of Vicente Fernandez, thus dismissing the action against Southern Motors, Inc. Regarding de la Serna, the court, citing Lasam vs. Smith and Gillaco vs. Manila Railroad Co., held that a carrier is responsible only if it or its employees fail to exercise reasonable diligence. Since the truck was parked when struck, de la Serna was not held responsible. The Petition: Plaintiff-appellant assailed the dismissal of the case against Southern Motors, Inc., arguing that the truck was legally owned by Southern Motors, Inc. at the time of the accident.
Issue(s)
Whether Southern Motors, Inc. is liable for the damages caused by the truck bearing plate No. A-659. Whether Carmelino de la Serna is liable for breach of contract of carriage.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, dismissing the action against both defendants-appellees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the liability of Southern Motors, Inc.: The Court held that Southern Motors, Inc. is not liable because it was not the owner of the truck at the time of the accident, despite the dealer's plate belonging to it. The truck was sold by Southern Motors, Inc. to Roberto Bolneo on August 8, 1955, and mortgaged back to the company. Southern Motors, Inc. complied with the law by reporting the sale to the Motor Vehicles Office on August 31, 1955. However, Bolneo failed to register the truck in his name and continued to use the dealer's plate, a clear violation of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law. This failure on the part of Bolneo is imputable to him alone and cannot be a legal ground for holding the vendor liable. The Court distinguished this case from previous rulings where the registered owner was held liable, emphasizing that in this instance, Southern Motors, Inc. was no longer the owner and had fulfilled its legal obligations regarding registration. The Court reiterated that under the Revised Motor Vehicle Law, the vendee is required to register the vehicle and is prohibited from displaying the dealer's plate number. On the liability of Carmelino de la Serna: The Court affirmed the lower court's finding that the truck operated by de la Serna was completely stopped when it was struck by the other truck. Following established jurisprudence, the Court held that a carrier is responsible only when it or its employees fail to exercise reasonable diligence. Since the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the other truck, who hit a parked vehicle, de la Serna, as the carrier, could not be held responsible for the resulting damages. The Court found no error in the lower court's application of the principles laid down in Lasam vs. Smith and Gillaco vs. Manila Railroad Co., which require a showing of lack of reasonable diligence on the part of the carrier or its employees.
Main Doctrine
The vendor of a motor vehicle is not liable for damages caused by the vendee's operation of the vehicle if the vendor has complied with the provisions of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law regarding registration and the vendee has failed to register the vehicle in his name and continued to use the dealer's plate, as such failure is imputable to the vendee alone.