Bonifacio v. B. L. T. Bus Co., Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs-appellees filed a civil case for damages against B. L. T. Bus Co., Inc. and its driver, Sergio de Luna, arising from a vehicular accident. The accident occurred when a Mercedes Benz car, driven by Alberto Concepcion with Jovito Bonifacio, Sr., his wife Rosario Santos Vda. de Bonifacio, and neighbor Agustin Angeles as passengers, collided with LTB passenger bus No. 136 driven by Sergio de Luna. The Mercedes Benz was traveling on the right lane at 30 miles per hour on a slippery, drizzling morning. Concepcion saw a cargo truck parked on the left portion of the highway without parking lights. While passing the parked truck, the LTB bus, coming from the opposite direction, swerved to its left, invading the lane of the Mercedes Benz, and collided with it. The impact caused the Mercedes Benz to swerve to the right shoulder, while the bus made a U-turn and stopped on the left lane. Jovito Bonifacio, Sr. was thrown out of the car and died instantaneously. The other passengers were seriously injured. Procedural History: The civil case was filed pursuant to a reservation made in a criminal case against the bus driver, Sergio de Luna, for homicide, multiple physical injuries, and damage to property through reckless imprudence. The criminal case resulted in de Luna's conviction, which was pending appeal. The Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasig) rendered judgment sentencing the defendants-appellants, B. L. T. Bus Co., Inc. and Sergio de Luna, to pay jointly and severally P240,905.72 in damages, with interest. The Petition: Defendants-appellants appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the negligence of the LTB bus driver was the proximate cause of the accident. Whether the employer, B. L. T. Bus Co., Inc., is responsible for the fault of its driver. Whether the damages awarded by the trial court are reasonable.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, holding the defendants-appellants, B. L. T. Bus Co., Inc. and Sergio de Luna, jointly and severally liable for damages. The Court found the bus driver negligent and that his negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. The employer was also found liable for failing to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees and in the maintenance of its vehicles.
Ratio Decidendi
On the negligence of the LTB bus driver: The Court held that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the LTB bus driver, de Luna. The driver admitted that it was dark and raining, requiring greater prudence and a slackened pace due to the slippery highway. His failure to see the parked cargo truck until he was 50 meters away indicated inattentiveness. Furthermore, his act of swerving into the lane of the oncoming Mercedes Benz without ensuring it was safe constituted negligence. De Luna's own statement to the police, admitting his bus skidded to the left and hit the Mercedes Benz after he applied brakes upon seeing the parked truck, corroborated this finding. The Court found his trial version, that the Mercedes Benz hit his bus, incredible and contrary to physical facts and common experience. On the employer's liability: The Court affirmed the employer's liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, which makes employers liable for damages caused by their employees in the discharge of their duties, unless they prove they exercised due care in selection and supervision. The Court found that B. L. T. Bus Co., Inc. failed to prove this diligence. Evidence showed alterations in the job sheet for brake lining replacement to conceal that it was overdue, indicating an attempt to hide lax maintenance. The driver's gruelling schedule of over eleven hours daily, paid by the hour, encouraged excessive working time, leading to fatigue and inattentiveness. Despite numerous violations by de Luna, the company imposed only token fines, showing laxity in enforcing its rules. The bus involved was also overdue for overhauling and its brake linings were significantly overdue, contributing to the driver's inability to control the vehicle. The Court concluded that the company's defense of diligence was demolished by these facts. On the reasonableness of damages: The Court found the damages awarded to be fair and reasonable. The deceased, Jovito Bonifacio, Sr., was a successful businessman, and the trial court's assessment of his lost future earnings was based on his income and a conservative life expectancy. The expenses incurred for the funeral and related costs were itemized and considered. The Court also dismissed the defendants' technical defense regarding subrogation for expenses paid by the family corporation, stating it was raised too late on appeal and that such a defense would not diminish the liability. The damages awarded to the injured passengers, Rosario Santos Vda. de Bonifacio, Alberto Concepcion, and Agustin Angeles, for hospitalization, medical expenses, lost income, and physical suffering, were also deemed justified. The moral and exemplary damages were considered not unconscionable given the circumstances. The award of interest at 6% per annum was also upheld as permissible under Article 2211 of the Civil Code.
Main Doctrine
An employer is liable for damages caused by the negligence of its employee in the discharge of their duties, unless the employer proves it exercised due care in the selection and supervision of the employee. Laxity in supervision, alteration of documents to conceal overdue maintenance, and toleration of repeated violations by an employee can negate the defense of diligence.