Saludares v. Martinez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 29, 1961, Angel Abanilla, a chief mechanic of J. Martinez Transportation, owned by appellants Jose and Gregoria Martinez, was driving Bus No. 206 to buy spare parts for the company. While en route, the bus hit Rolando Saludares, a 14-year-old student riding a bicycle, causing injuries that led to his death on December 1, 1961. Abanilla was convicted of homicide through simple negligence, with the right to file a separate civil action expressly reserved. Procedural History: Plaintiffs-appellees Baltazar and Cresencia Saludares filed a civil action against the defendant-appellants, owners and employers of Abanilla, to recover damages. The Court of First Instance of Davao rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendants to pay various sums for the death of Rolando Saludares, transportation expenses, hospitalization, funeral expenses, moral damages, and attorney's fees. The Petition: The defendant spouses appealed directly to the Supreme Court, alleging that the trial court erred in holding them liable for damages and in fixing the amount thereof. They argued that Abanilla was not acting within the scope of his employment as his working hours had ended, the bus was not on its regular trip, and he was a mechanic, not a regular driver.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendants-appellants are liable for damages arising from the death of Rolando Saludares. Whether the amounts awarded by the trial court as damages are proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao, holding the defendants-appellants liable for damages and upholding the amounts awarded. The appeal was found to be manifestly devoid of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the defendants-appellants are liable for damages. The Court reiterated the principle that the presentation of proof of the negligence of an employee gives rise to the presumption that the employer did not exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of its employees. Appellants failed to overcome this presumption. Abanilla's testimony, supported by appellants' own evidence, indicated he was on an errand to buy spare parts for the company, with express permission to use any company vehicle if the service jeep was unavailable. The fact that Abanilla was retained in employment after the incident further suggested he had not violated company rules. Therefore, the accident occurred while Abanilla was in the actual performance of his duties and on the occasion thereof. Furthermore, the Court noted that allowing a mechanic with a provisional driver's license to drive a bulky passenger bus, especially when the driver's seat offered limited visibility, strongly indicated a lack of due diligence in supervision by the appellants. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court found no error in the amounts awarded by the trial court. The Court noted that the sums awarded for death, moral damages, and attorney's fees were less than the P12,000.00 consistently held as reasonable for death resulting from a tortious act. The awards for hospitalization and funeral expenses were supported by bills and testimony, which the lower court found credible and were not subject to review on appeal. The transportation expenses were also duly established as necessary due to the plaintiffs' location in Manila at the time of the accident.
Main Doctrine
An employer is presumed to have failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of its employees if the negligence of the employee caused damage, and this presumption can only be overcome by evidence of the employer's due diligence. The employer is liable for damages arising from the death of a person caused by the negligence of its employee while performing duties.