Hawk Corp. v. Lee
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On March 17, 1991, a vehicular accident occurred involving a motorcycle driven by Silvino Tan, with his wife Vivian Tan Lee as passenger, a passenger jeep, and a bus owned by Philippine Hawk Corporation (petitioner) and driven by Margarito Avila. The accident resulted in the death of Silvino Tan and physical injuries to Vivian Tan Lee. Procedural History: Vivian Tan Lee filed a complaint for damages based on quasi-delict against Philippine Hawk Corporation and Margarito Avila. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Margarito Avila guilty of simple negligence and held Philippine Hawk Corporation liable for failing to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of its driver. The RTC ordered them to pay damages jointly and severally. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modification in the award of damages. The Petition: Philippine Hawk Corporation filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, questioning the CA's findings on negligence, proximate cause, application of the last clear chance doctrine, and the award of damages.
Issue(s)
Whether or not negligence may be attributed to petitioner’s driver, and whether negligence on his part was the proximate cause of the accident. Whether or not petitioner is liable to respondent for damages. Whether or not the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals are proper.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed with modification, ordering Philippine Hawk Corporation and Margarito Avila to pay Vivian Tan Lee jointly and severally specific amounts for civil indemnity, actual damages, moral damages, indemnity for loss of earning capacity, and temperate damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether negligence may be attributed to petitioner’s driver and was the proximate cause of the accident: The Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that Margarito Avila, the bus driver, was guilty of simple negligence. The trial court found that the bus, in hitting the passenger jeep parked on the left side of the road, must have been running from the right lane to the left lane, making the collision with the motorcycle and the jeep inevitable. The bus driver's testimony that he saw the motorcycle ahead of the bus but did not slow down, instead veering to the left, demonstrated negligence. Foreseeability is the test of negligence; the bus driver should have realized that his actions subjected others to unreasonable risks. The Court found no cogent reason to disturb these findings, which were supported by evidence on record. On whether petitioner is liable to respondent for damages: The Court upheld the finding that petitioner Philippine Hawk Corporation is liable. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, when an employee's negligence causes damage, there is an instant presumption that the employer failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in selection and supervision. To escape liability, the employer must present convincing proof of such diligence. Petitioner failed to overcome this presumption, as its selection and supervision tests focused on driving ability and physical fitness, and it was unaware of Avila's prior sideswiping incidents. Therefore, the company was held liable for failing to sufficiently inculcate discipline and correct behavior in its driver. On whether the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals are proper: The Court found the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals to be proper, with some modifications. The Court clarified that the Court of Appeals has the authority under Section 8, Rule 51 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to review matters not assigned as errors if necessary for a just decision. The award for loss of earning capacity was based on the deceased's income tax return and testimony, with a reasonable computation of net earnings. Actual damages were modified based on substantiated receipts for funeral and medical expenses. Moral damages for the death of the husband and for the wife's physical injuries were affirmed, though the latter was reduced to conform to jurisprudence. Temperate damages for the damaged motorcycle were deemed reasonable due to the lack of precise proof of repair cost. Civil indemnity for the death of the husband was also affirmed as proper.
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 when an employee's negligence causes damage or injury to another. To avoid liability, the employer must present convincing proof of such diligence. The Court of Appeals has the authority to review matters not assigned as errors if necessary for a just decision.