G.R. No. 174156
June 20, 2012
FACTS:
Respondent Jose A. Espinas was driving his car along Leon Guinto
Street in Manila when he was suddenly hit by another car. Upon verifying with
the LTO, Espinas learned that the owner of the other car is Filcar. This car was
assigned to Filcar's Corporate Secretary Atty. Candido Flor and, at the time of
the incident, was driven by Atty. Flor's personal driver, Timoteo Floresca.
Espinas sued Filcar for damages. Filcar denied liability, claiming
that the incident was not due to its fault or negligence since Floresca was not
its employee but that of Atty. Flor.
ISSUE: Whether or not Filcar, as registered owner of the motor
vehicle which figured in an accident, may be held liable for the damages caused
to the Espinas
HELD:
Filcar, as
registered owner, is deemed the employer of the driver, Floresca, and is thus
vicariously liable under Article 2176 in relation with Article 2180 of the
Civil Code
It is undisputed that Filcar is the registered owner of the motor
vehicle which hit and caused damage to Espinas' car. It is on this basis that
Filcar is primarily and directly liable to Espinas for damages.
As a general rule, one is only responsible for his own act or
omission. Thus, a person will generally be held liable only for the torts
committed by himself and not by another. This general rule is laid down in
Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which provides to wit:
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such
fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between
the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this
Chapter.
Based on the above-cited article, the obligation to indemnify
another for damage caused by one's act or omission is imposed upon the
tortfeasor himself, i.e., the person
who committed the negligent act or omission. The law, however, provides for
exceptions when it makes certain persons liable for the act or omission of
another.
One exception is an employer who is made vicariously liable for
the tort committed by his employee. Article 2180 of the Civil Code states:
Article 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable
not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for
whom one is responsible.
x x x x
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned
tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
x x x x
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the
persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damage.
Under Article 2176, in relation with Article 2180, of the Civil
Code, an action predicated on an employee's act or omission may be instituted
against the employer who is held liable for the negligent act or omission
committed by his employee.
Although the employer is not the actual tortfeasor, the law makes
him vicariously liable on the basis of the civil law principle of pater familias for failure to exercise
due care and vigilance over the acts of one's subordinates to prevent damage to
another. In the last paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the employer
may invoke the defense that he observed all the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent damage.
It is well settled that in case of motor vehicle mishaps, the registered owner of the motor vehicle
is considered as the employer of the tortfeasor-driver, and is made
primarily liable for the tort committed by the latter under Article 2176, in
relation with Article 2180, of the Civil Code.
In so far as third persons are concerned, the registered owner of the motor vehicle is the employer of the
negligent driver, and the actual employer is considered merely as an agent of
such owner.
Thus, it is clear that for the purpose of holding the registered
owner of the motor vehicle primarily and directly liable for damages under
Article 2176, in relation with Article 2180, of the Civil Code, the existence
of an employer-employee relationship, as it is understood in labor relations
law, is not required. It is sufficient to establish that Filcar is the
registered owner of the motor vehicle causing damage in order that it may be
held vicariously liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
Rationale
for holding the registered owner vicariously liable
The rationale for the rule that a registered owner is vicariously
liable for damages caused by the operation of his motor vehicle is explained by
the principle behind motor vehicle registration, viz:
The main
aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify the owner so that if any
accident happens, or that any damage or injury is caused by the vehicle on the
public highways, responsibility therefor can be fixed on a definite individual,
the registered owner. Instances are numerous where vehicles running on public highways
caused accidents or injuries to pedestrians or other vehicles without positive
identification of the owner or drivers, or with very scant means of
identification. It is to forestall these circumstances, so inconvenient or
prejudicial to the public, that the motor vehicle registration is primarily
ordained, in the interest of the determination of persons responsible for
damages or injuries caused on public highways.
Employer-employee
relationship between registered owner and driver is irrelevant
Thus, whether there is an employer-employee relationship between
the registered owner and the driver is irrelevant in determining the liability
of the registered owner who the law holds primarily
and directly responsible for any accident, injury or death caused by the
operation of the vehicle in the streets and highways.
The general public policy involved in motor vehicle registration
is the protection of innocent third persons who may have no means of
identifying public road malefactors and, therefore, would find it difficult if
not impossible to seek redress for damages they may sustain in accidents
resulting in deaths, injuries and other damages; by fixing the person held
primarily and directly liable for the damages sustained by victims of road
mishaps, the law ensures that relief will always be available to them.
To identify the person primarily and directly responsible for the
damages would also prevent a situation where a registered owner of a motor
vehicle can easily escape liability by passing on the blame to anther who may
have no means to answer for the damages caused, thereby defeating the claims of
victims of road accidents. We take note that some motor vehicles running on our
roads are driven not by their registered owners, but by employed drivers who,
in most instances, do not have the financial means to pay for the damages
caused in case of accidents.
Filcar
cannot pass on the liability to another party
The agreement between Filcar and Atty. Flor to assign the motor
vehicle to the latter does not bind Espinas who was not a party to and has no
knowledge of the agreement, and whose only recourse is to the motor vehicle
registration.
Filcar
cannot use the defense that the employee acted beyond the scope of his assigned
task or that it exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage
Neither can Filcar use the defenses available under Article 2180
of the Civil Code – that the employee acts beyond the scope of his assigned
task or that it exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage – because the motor vehicle registration law, to a certain
extent, modified Article 2180 of the Civil Code by making these defenses
unavailable to the registered owner of the motor vehicle. Thus, for as long as
Filcar is the registered owner of the car involved in the vehicular accident,
it could not escape primary liability for the damages caused to Espinas.
Filcar's
recourse is against the actual employer of the driver and the driver himself
- Registered owner is deemed employer of the driver and is thus vicariously liable under Article 2176 in relation with Article 2180 of the Civil Code
- The main aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify the owner so that if any accident happens, or that any damage or injury is caused by the vehicle on public highways, responsibility therefor can be fixed on a definite individual, the registered owner.
- The motor vehicle registration law modified Article 2180 to a certain extent so that the defense available thereunder cannot be used by the registered owner
- The registered owner can recover from the actual owner and the driver under the doctrine of unjust enrichment
