The Supreme Court ruled that the owner of a vehicle cannot be held liable for an accident involving the vehicle if it was driven without the owner's consent or knowledge and by someone not employed by the owner. In this case, the driver admitted to taking the owner's jeep from the garage without permission. As the driver was neither an employee of the owner nor had the owner's consent to drive the vehicle, the owner could not be held liable for the accident caused by the driver.
The Supreme Court ruled that the owner of a vehicle cannot be held liable for an accident involving the vehicle if it was driven without the owner's consent or knowledge and by someone not employed by the owner. In this case, the driver admitted to taking the owner's jeep from the garage without permission. As the driver was neither an employee of the owner nor had the owner's consent to drive the vehicle, the owner could not be held liable for the accident caused by the driver.
The Supreme Court ruled that the owner of a vehicle cannot be held liable for an accident involving the vehicle if it was driven without the owner's consent or knowledge and by someone not employed by the owner. In this case, the driver admitted to taking the owner's jeep from the garage without permission. As the driver was neither an employee of the owner nor had the owner's consent to drive the vehicle, the owner could not be held liable for the accident caused by the driver.
Facts: An owner of a vehicle cannot be held liable for an
accident involving the said vehicle if the same was Plaintiffs Virgilio Catuar, Antonio Sarmiento, Jr, driven without his consent or knowledge and by a person Ruperto Catuar, Jr were aboard a jeep with plate no. 77- not employed by him. To hold the owner liable for the 99-F-I owned by plaintiff Ruperto Catuar, was driving the negligence of Sabiniano who was neither his driver nor said jeep along Ortigas Aveenue. They were running employee would be absurd as it would be like holding moderately at 20-35kph when suddenly, another jeep the owner of a stolen vehicle liable for an accident with plate no. 99-97-F-J driven by defendant Oscar caused by the person who stole such vehicle. Sabiniano hit and bumped their jeep. As a result, the jeep was damaged and plaintiff Virgilio was thrown into Defendant cited cases wherein the Court held the the road, sustained broken wrist and contusions on the owner liable for the accident involving their vehicle but head. Likewise, Antonio Sarmiento, Sr. was trapped inside the SC said that we cannot blindly apply absolute rules the fallen jeepney. based on precedents whose facts do not jibe for square with pending cases. Every case must be determined on Plaintiffs filed a case against both Oscar Sabiniano its own peculiar factual circumstances. In this case, the as driver and Gualberto Duavit as owner. records of petition fail to indicate the slightest indicia of Defendant Duavit while admitting ownership of an employer-employee relationship between the owner jeep denied employer-employee relationship between. and the erring driver or any consent given by the driver. Sabiniano. In the testimony of Sabiniano, he admitted We cannot hold the owner liable. that he took the jeep from Duavit’s garage without the consent and authority of the latter. He testified further that Duavit even filed charged against him for theft but did not push through as his parents apologized to Duavit.
Issue:
W/N the owner of a private vehicle figured in an
accident can be held liable when said vehicle was neither driven by an employee of owner nor taken with consent.