Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. vs.

Court of Appeals June 17, 1997 Petition for review under certiorari of CA decision Ponente: Davide Jr., J. FACTS - A Philtranco bus was being jumpstartedi along Magsaysay Blvd., turning into Gomez Street of Calbayog City. The bus was being driven by Rogasiones Manilhig. - Ramon A. Acuesta was riding an easyrider bicycle along Gomez Street. When the buss engine started from the jumpstart, Acuesta was directly in front of the bus. The bus hit and ran over Acuesta. - P/Sgt. Yabao was jogging in the area and witnessed the incident. He also forced Manilhig to stop and proceed directly to the police station. - Philtranco offered a defense of good father of the family diligence in selecting Manilhig and that Manilhig had a spotless record. They alleged that Acuesta had suddenly overtaken two tricycles into the bus lane and that Manilhig was unable to avoid hitting Acuesta. Manilhig feared that he would be mobbed and was to report directly to the police, and surrendered when Yabao introduced himself as a police officer. - Atty. Jose Buban, Philtrancos lawyer, was not present on either hearing dates set by the court. The Court found Philtranco to have waived their right to present evidence due to the absence of their counsel, and ruled in favor of the heirs of Acuesta. - On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial courts decision. The CA applied Art. 2180 and 2194, saying that Philtranco cannot use good father of the family diligence as a defense, and that Philtranco is solidarily liable with Malihig for damages. ISSUES 1. WON Philtranco had waived their right to present evidence (YES; not torts-related) 2. WON the CA correctly applied Art. 2180 and 2194 in ruling that Philtranco is solidarily liable (YES, main torts issue) 3. WON CA correctly assessed death indemnity (NO, should have been only P50k based on jurisprudence; not torts-related) RATIO If a respondent fails to prove good father of the family diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees, then their liability to those who suffered injury or damage shall be solidary with their negligent employee. - Defense of good father of the family diligence must be proved. In this case, due to the failure of counsel of the respondents to appear during the hearings, their right to present evidence was deemed to have been waived. No evidence of good father of the family diligence meant that the defense could not be asserted fully.

- Art. 2194 was properly applied, since Art. 2180 itself provides that the liability of an employer over the negligence of their employees is primary and direct. - Since the employer's liability is primary, direct and solidary, its only recourse if the judgment for damages is satisfied by it is to recover what it has paid from its employee who committed the fault or negligence which gave rise to the action based on quasi-delict, as provided in Art. 2181. DISPOSITION: CA decision AFFIRMED, modifications in amounts of damages awarded

Jumpstarting When a stalled vehicle is pushed along the road and then started while on first gear. This will cause the vehicle to jump forward when the engine starts, hence the term. This is usually done when the battery is close to dead, since making the car move makes the alternator function slightly and partially charges the battery, enough to cause an ignition.