Prudencio Lasconsay v.

Fidel Berog
GR No. 188686
Dec 3, 2014

FACTS:
Prudencio Laconsay (Prudencio) visited the Mary Help of Christians Chapel to check the status of
its construction. Prudencio promised the engineer that he will bring the harabas on a April, 22 1994, to be
used to help clean the area. On said date, Prudencio needed to go out of town and assigned Severo Ontuca
(Ontuca) to drive the harabas in his stead, to which Ontuca agreed.

Upon arrival in the chapel to clean the area, an enraged Daniel Bautista (Bautista) threatened
Ontuca with a bolo and demanded the ignition key of the harabas. Ontuca handed the key. Bautista took
the harabas, while Ontuca tried to chase and ride the Harabas

The Harabas hit a Toyota corolla which resulted to injuring Fidel Berog (Fidel), 11yrs old, who was
situated between 2 toyota corollas fixing his bike. After the initial collision, Bautista ran away, Ontuca then
held the steering wheel, but in the process had ran over the leg of Fidel. Fidel was brought to the hospital
where his leg got amputated as it was crushed from the incident

The parents of Fidel filed a complaint for damages against the Prudencio, Ontuca, Felisa and
Bautista. Prudencio and Ontuca filed and answer, while Felisa and Bautista were in default. The RTC ruled
in favor of the parents of Fidel and the CA affirmed the decision.

ISSUE:
Whether Prudencio is liable for the damages caused by the event.

HELD:
Yes, under Art. 2180, the obligation imposed by Art. 2176 is demandable only for one’s own acts
or omissions but also for the persons for whom one is responsible.

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 trade or
business.

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.

In the case at bar, The Court agrees with the CA's pronouncement that Prudencio cannot deny
being Ontuca's employer on April 22, 1994. It is clearly evident in the record that Ontuca was authorized
by Prudencio to drive the Harabas because he could trust him24 which Ontuca confirmed. Also, Prudencio
cannot avoid liability on the basis of the registration of Felisa's ownership over the Harabas as it was
shown he had been entrusted with it when she left for abroad. Prudencio's written complaint in the
barangay also contained I his signature as Felisa's "authorized representative." He also has control of its
use. The CA emphasized that the operator of record continues to be the operator of the vehicle in
contemplation of law, as regards the public and third Person, and is responsible for the consequences
incident to the vehicles operation, and who should be held out as the employer of the driver. To give
effect to this policy, the actual operator and employer shall be considered as the agent of the operator of
record. Thus, Felisa and
Prudenbio, as such employers, share a vicarious liability for the negligent
, use of\ the Harabas for failing to establish their having exercised the
diligen¢e of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of
. emploYj~e.27 They .are both _Hable to F~del: Felisa, as registered owner, and
Pruden~io, who, without bemg the registered owner, had control of the use
of the ~ehicle.28