Yambao v. Zuñiga
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On May 6, 1992, at approximately 3:30 p.m., a passenger bus owned by petitioner Cecilia Yambao, driven by her employee Ceferino G. Venturina, was traveling along EDSA. The bus bumped Herminigildo Zuñiga, a pedestrian, causing him severe injuries. Zuñiga was rushed to the hospital but succumbed to his injuries shortly thereafter. Procedural History: The heirs of Herminigildo Zuñiga (respondents) filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Yambao and her driver, Venturina, alleging reckless, careless, and imprudent driving. Petitioner denied liability, claiming the victim bumped into her bus while avoiding a woman chasing him, and asserted she exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in hiring and supervising Venturina. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City found petitioner and others jointly and severally liable for damages, including indemnity for death, funeral expenses, moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. The RTC rejected petitioner's defense, deeming her theory incredible and applying Article 1756 of the Civil Code. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision but clarified that the case was one of quasi-delict, not common carriage, and thus Article 2180 of the Civil Code was applicable. The CA found petitioner directly and primarily liable for failing to prove she exercised the diligence of a good father of a family. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner seeks to reverse the CA decision, arguing that the victim's own negligence was the proximate cause of his death and that she exercised the proper diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of her driver.
Issue(s)
Whether the victim's own negligence was the proximate cause of his death. Whether petitioner Cecilia Yambao exercised the proper diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of her driver, thereby absolving her from liability.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the RTC's finding of liability against petitioner Cecilia Yambao is affirmed. Costs are against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the victim's negligence: The Court held that the first issue raised by the petitioner, concerning whether the victim's own negligence was the proximate cause of his death, is a factual issue. As a general rule, the Supreme Court cannot pass upon factual issues in a petition for review on certiorari, as its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law. The Court found no cogent reason to disregard this rule and sustained the factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that the proximate cause of the victim's death was the reckless and imprudent driving of petitioner's bus by Venturina. The petitioner's theory that the victim bumped into the bus was deemed incredible by the lower courts. On the issue of petitioner's diligence: The Court found that petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of negligence arising from Article 2180 of the Civil Code. The presumption is that the employer is negligent either in the selection or supervision of the employee. To avoid liability, the employer must present adequate and convincing proof of exercising the diligence of a good father of a family. Petitioner's claim that she required Venturina to submit his driver's license and clearances was found insufficient and unsubstantiated by evidence, as certified true copies were not presented. Furthermore, petitioner admitted that Venturina submitted these requirements only on the day of the accident, demonstrating a lack of due diligence in the selection process. Even if the documents were submitted earlier, the Court noted that due diligence requires more than just possessing a license; it necessitates a thorough examination of the applicant's qualifications, experience, and record of service, which petitioner failed to prove she conducted. Additionally, petitioner failed to show any proof of due supervision, such as training programs or seminars on road safety, indicating a lack of oversight over her employee's conduct.
Main Doctrine
An employer is vicariously liable for the damages caused by the negligence of their employee acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code. To be absolved from liability, the employer must prove they exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of the employee, which includes not only requiring basic documents but also thoroughly examining the applicant's qualifications, experience, and record of service, and implementing proper supervision and safety guidelines.