Lampesa v. De Vera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 28, 1988, respondent Dr. Juan De Vera, Jr. was a passenger in a jeepney driven by Modesto Tollas. While the jeepney was stopped to allow a truck, driven by petitioner Dario Copsiyat and owned by petitioner Cornelio Lampesa, to park, the truck suddenly slid backward and struck the jeepney. De Vera, Jr., who was in the front passenger seat, sustained an injury resulting in the amputation of his left middle finger. The defense presented a different version, stating the jeepney sideswiped the truck's rear while it was still on the highway. Following an unsuccessful attempt at an amicable settlement, De Vera, Jr. filed a complaint for damages against the truck owner and driver, and the jeepney owner and driver. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City, Pangasinan, Branch 57, found Dario Copsiyat negligent and determined his negligence to be the proximate cause of De Vera, Jr.'s injuries. The court also held Cornelio Lampesa liable for failing to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of his driver, Copsiyat, under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. The trial court ordered Lampesa and Copsiyat to pay moral damages, actual damages, and attorney's fees. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the findings of negligence against Copsiyat and Lampesa. The Petition: Petitioners Cornelio Lampesa and Dario Copsiyat seek reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision through a petition for review. They raise three main issues: (1) whether Copsiyat or the jeepney driver, Tollas, was negligent; (2) if Copsiyat was negligent, whether the award of moral damages and attorney's fees was justified; and (3) whether the lower courts erred in appreciating the evidence. Petitioners argue that Tollas was the negligent party and that Lampesa exercised due diligence in hiring Copsiyat. Respondents maintain the findings of negligence by the lower courts are correct and that the damages awarded are justified under the Civil Code.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's ruling that petitioners are liable for the injury sustained by respondent De Vera, Jr. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding moral damages and attorney's fees.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated August 21, 2002, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 49778 is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the liability of petitioners: The Court held that both the trial and appellate courts found Copsiyat negligent in maneuvering the truck and that his negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. The Court reiterated that it is not bound to weigh the evidence again, especially when the findings of the RTC and CA coincide. The resolution of factual issues is primarily the function of the trial court, and its findings, when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding on the Supreme Court. Furthermore, once employee negligence is established, a presumption of employer negligence in selection and supervision arises. To rebut this, the employer must present adequate proof of due diligence. Lampesa failed to provide such proof, relying only on bare allegations unsubstantiated by evidence, thus he cannot avoid solidary liability for his driver's tortious act. On the award of moral damages and attorney's fees: The Court found that petitioners failed to raise the issue of the award of moral damages and attorney's fees before the Court of Appeals. It is a well-entrenched rule that issues not raised in the lower courts cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Moreover, the award of moral damages is justifiable under Article 2219(2) of the Civil Code for quasi-delicts causing physical injuries. The award for attorney's fees is also proper under Article 2208(2) of the Civil Code, as respondent De Vera, Jr. was compelled to litigate due to the petitioners' failure to amicably settle his claim.
Main Doctrine
An employer is solidarily liable for the tortious acts of its employee if it fails to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of said employee. The presumption of employer negligence arises once employee negligence is established, and the employer must present adequate proof to rebut this presumption.