TORTS VICARIOUS LIABILITY - EMPLOYERS

SPS. JAYME v. APOSTOL G.R. No. 163609

November 27, 2008
REYES, R.T., J.
Sps. Buenaventura Jayme and Rosario Jayme Rodrigo Apostol, Fidel Lozano, Ernesto Simbulan,
Mayor Fernando Q. Miguel, Municipality of
Koronadal (Now City of Koronadal), Province of
South Cotabato, represented by the Municipal
Treasurer and/or Municipal Mayor Fernando Q.
Miguel, and the First Integrated Bonding and
Insurance Company, Inc.
Challenging the Decision of the CA via a Petition for Review on Certiorari which reversed and set aside the
RTC decision, insofar as Mayor Miguel was absolved from liability.

FACTS
2/5/1989 – Mayor Miguel of Koronadal, South Cotabato was on board the Isuzu pick-up truck driven by
Fidel Lozano, an employee of the Municipality of Koronadal. It was registered in the name of Apostol but in
the possession of Sibulan. Lozano borrowed the truck from Simbulan to bring Mayor Miguel to Buayan
Airport at General Santos City for his Manila flight. The pick-up truck accidentally hit Marvin C. Jayme, a
minor, who was then crossing the highway, which sent him flying 50 meters away from the point of impact,
thus indicating Lozano was driving at a very high speed. Marvin sustained head injuries with a subdural
hematoma and diffused cerebral contusion. He was initially treated at Howard Hubbard Memorial Hospital
then was airlifted to Ricardo Limso Medical Center in Davao but eventually died 6 days after the accident.

Petitioners, the parents of Marvin, filed a complaint for (actual, moral, exemplary, attorney’s fees and costs)
damages with the RTC against respondents. They prayed that all respondents be held solidarily liable for
their loss pointing out that the proximate cause of Marvin’s death was Lozano’s negligence.

Answers from each respondent – denied liability:

• Apostol and Simbulan averred that Lozano took the pick-up truck without their consent.
• Miguel and Lozano pointed out that Marvin’s sudden sprint across the highway made it impossible
to avoid the accident. (Answer was adopted by the Municipality of Koronadal)
• Miguel denied being on board when it hit Marvin.
• First Integrated Bonding and Insurance Company, the vehicle insurer, insisted contributory liability
only and is only conditioned on the right of the insured. No claim, no cause of action.

RTC Decision on 1/25/1999: In favor of Petitioners.

Appeal by Mayor Miguel to the CA
• Mayor Miguel’s contentions:
o Lozano is not Miguel’s employer. It is actually the Municipality of Koronadal.
o Denied that he did not exercise due care and diligence in the supervision of Lozano.
o The event was unexpected and cannot be attributed to him.
• CA Decision on 10/22/2003: Reversed and set aside the RTC’s decision.
o Municipality of Koronadal was the employer of both Mayor Miguel and Lozano
o Mayor Miguel was a mere passenger in the pick-up truck.
o Registered owner of a vehicle who is jointly and severally liable with the driver for damages
incurred by passengers or third persons as a consequence of injuries or death sustained in the
operation of the vehicle.

Petitioner’s principal contention: Vicarious liability should attach to Mayor Miguel. He was not a mere
passenger, but had direct control and supervision over Lozano during the time of accident. The element of
direct control is not negated by the fact that Lozano’s employer was the Municipality of Koronadal. Being
Lozano’s superior, Mayor Miguel still had control.
ISSUE/S
May a municipal mayor be held solidarily liable for the negligent acts of the driver assigned to him, which
resulted in the death of a minor pedestrian?
RULING
No, vicarious liability will not apply in this case so as to hold municipal mayor Miguel solidarily liable
for the negligent acts of the driver.

Art. 2180 of the NCC provides that a person is not only liable for one’s own quasi-delicts but also for those
persons for whom he is responsible. To make the employee liable under par. 5 and 6 of Art. 2180, it must be
established that the injurious or tortuous act was committed at the time the employee was performing his
functions. Furthermore, employer-employee relationship cannot be assumed. It is incumbent upon the
plaintiff to prove the relationship by preponderance of evidence.

The CA correctly held that it was the Municipality of Koronadal which was the lawful employer of
Lozano at the time of the accident. It is uncontested that Lozano was employed as a driver by the
municipality. That he was subsequently assigned to Mayor Miguel during the time of the accident is of no
moment. This Court has, on several occasions, held that an employer-employee relationship still exists even
if the employee was loaned by the employer to another person or entity because control over the employee
subsists. In the case under review, the Municipality of Koronadal remains to be Lozano's employer
notwithstanding Lozano's assignment to Mayor Miguel. Significantly, no negligence may be imputed
against a fellow employee although the person may have the right to control the manner of the
vehicle's operation. In the absence of an employer-employee relationship establishing vicarious liability,
the driver's negligence should not be attributed to a fellow employee who only happens to be an occupant of
the vehicle. Mayor Miguel was neither Lozano's employer nor the vehicle's registered owner. There existed
no causal relationship between him and Lozano or the vehicle used that will make him accountable for
Marvin's death. Mayor Miguel was a mere passenger at the time of the accident.

As correctly held by the trial court, the lawful employer of Lozano is the Municipality of Koronadal.
Unfortunately for Spouses Jayme, the municipality may not be sued because it is an agency of the State
engaged in governmental functions and, hence, immune from suit. Liability attaches to the registered
owner, the negligent driver and his direct employer. Settled is the rule that the registered owner of a vehicle
is jointly and severally liable with the driver for damages incurred by passengers and third persons as a
consequence of injuries or death sustained in the operation of said vehicles. Regardless of who the actual
owner, the operator of record continues to be the operator of the vehicle as regards the public and third
persons, and as such is directly and primarily responsible for the consequences incident to its operation.
DETAILS THAT ARE NOT RELEVANT BUT MIGHT GET ASKED ANYWAY
Requisites of Vicarious Liability:
(1) That the employee was chosen by the employer personally or through another;
(2) That the service to be rendered in accordance with orders which the employer has the authority to give at
all times; and
(3) That the illicit act of the employee was on the occasion or by reason of the functions entrusted to him.

Four-fold test in determining the existence of employer-employee relationship:

(1) the employer's power of selection;
(2) payment of wages or other remuneration;
(3) the employer's right to control the method of doing the work; and
(4) the employer's right of suspension or dismissal.
Santa’s Barbies 18-19