Syki v. Begasa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On June 22, 1992, respondent Salvador Begasa was injured when a truck owned by petitioner Ernesto Syki and driven by Elizalde Sablayan bumped the rear of a passenger jeepney while respondent was boarding it. Respondent sustained a fractured left thigh bone and lacerations. Procedural History: Respondent filed a complaint for damages against the owners and drivers of both vehicles. The trial court dismissed the case against the jeepney owner and driver but held petitioner Syki and his driver, Sablayan, jointly and severally liable for actual and moral damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The Petition: Petitioner Syki sought review, arguing that respondent was guilty of contributory negligence and that petitioner had exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in selecting and supervising his driver.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Ernesto Syki is liable for the injuries sustained by respondent Salvador Begasa under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Whether respondent Salvador Begasa was guilty of contributory negligence, warranting a mitigation of damages.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. Petitioner Ernesto Syki is liable for the injuries sustained by respondent Salvador Begasa.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of petitioner's liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code: The Court held that Article 2180 of the Civil Code creates a legal presumption of negligence on the part of the employer when an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee. This presumption can only be rebutted by a clear showing that the employer exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of the employee. The Court emphasized that to overcome this presumption, the employer must present concrete or documentary evidence, not merely testimonial evidence. In this case, petitioner failed to present the alleged police clearance, driving test results, or records of regular inspections, rendering his testimonial evidence insufficient to prove due diligence. Therefore, the legal presumption of negligence stands, making petitioner liable. On the issue of contributory negligence: The Court ruled in the negative. Article 2179 of the Civil Code allows for mitigation of damages if the plaintiff's negligence was only contributory. However, the Court found no evidence that respondent flagged down the jeepney in a prohibited area. The trial court and the Court of Appeals, whose factual findings are given great weight, found no negligence on the part of the respondent. The accident occurred because the petitioner's driver bumped the jeepney from the rear while respondent was already boarding, establishing the driver's negligence as the sole and proximate cause. Thus, there was no contributory negligence on the part of the respondent that would warrant a mitigation of damages.
Main Doctrine
An employer's claim of exercising the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of employees must be supported by concrete or documentary evidence, not merely testimonial evidence, to overcome the legal presumption of negligence.