Secosa v.

Francisco 041
GR No. 160039, 29 June 2004, Ynares-Santiago, J.
Digested by Nads • Law 000 – Corpo
Topic: Corporate Entity

Francisco died when he was run over by the truck driven by Secosa, owned by PET Dassad,
whose president is PET Sy. The parents sued all 3 and the RTC held all of them solidarily liable.
SC absolved PET Sy because there’s no sufficient justification to pierce the corporate veil and
hold him personally liable.

FACTS
• Erwin Francisco, an 18-y.o. 3rd year PT student, was riding a motorcycle. Behind him
was a sand and gravel truck, which in turn was being tailed by the Isuzu truck driven by
PET Raymundo Secosa.
o The Isuzu cargo track was owned by PET Dassad Warehousing and Port Services,
Inc, whose president is PET El Buenasucenso Sy.
• When PET Secosa overtook the sand and gravel truck, he bumped the motorcucle of
Francisco, causing him to fall. The rear wheels of the Isuzu truck then ran over Francisco,
which resulted in his instantaneous death. PET Secosa left his truck and fled the scene.
• RESPs, parents of Erwin, filed an action for damages against (1) Secosa, (2) Dassad
Warehousing and (3) Dassad’s president, Sy.
• RTC: PETs are jointly and severally liable.1
• CA: Affirmed.

ISSUES & HOLDING

• WON PET Dassad is liable? – YES. Failure to prove diligence of a good father of a
family in the selection and supervision of PET Secosa.
• WON PET Sy is liable? – NO. The corporation has separate and distinct personality
as its officers and stockholders.
• WON the award of P500,000 as moral damages is proper? – YES.

RATIO
Failure to exert diligence of a good father of a family in
the selection and supervision (DGFFSS) of PET Secosa.
• Article 2176 (quasi-delict) and Article 2180 (vicarious liability)
• Based on the provisions, when an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee,
there instantly arises a presumption that there was negligence on the part of the employer
either in the selection of his employee or in the supervision over him after such selection.

1
1. The sum of P55,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages; 2. The sum of P20,000.00 for the repair of the motorcycle; 3. The sum of
P100,000.00 for the loss of earning capacity; 4. The sum of P500,000.00 as moral damages; 5. The sum of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages 6.
The sum of P50,000.00 as attorneys fees plus cost of suit.
 • An ER may prove that he indeed exercised DGFFSS under the standard provided in the
case of Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. CA.
o SC quoted long parts but basically…
o Jurisprudentially, the employer must not merely present testimonial evidence to
prove that he observed the DGFFSS of his employee, but he must also support
such testimonial evidence with concrete or documentary evidence.
• PET Dassad failed to conclusively prove that it had exercised DGFFSS.
o Edilberto Dueme, the lone witness presented by PET Dassad, testified that he was
the one who recommended PET Secosa and that he believed the latter to be
physically and mentally fit for he had undergone rigid training and attended the
PPA safety seminar.
o However, PET Dassad failed to support the testimony with documentary
evidence, which is fatal to its position.

However, PET Sy cannot be held solidarily liable with

his co-PETs.
• While it may be true that he is PET’s president, such fact is not by itself sufficient to hold
him solidarily liable.
• A corporation is invested by law with a personality separate from that of its stockholders or members. It has
a personality separate and distinct from those of the persons composing. Mere ownership by a single
stockholder or by another corporation of all or nearly all of the capital stock of a corporation is not in itself
sufficient ground for disregarding the separate corporate personality. A corporation’s authority to act and
its liability for its actions are separate and apart from the individuals who own it. For the separate juridical
personality of a corporation to be disregarded, the wrongdoing must be clearly and convincingly
established.
• The records of this case are bereft of any evidence tending to show the presence of
grounds to justify the piercing of the corporate veil.
o The cargo truck was registered in the name of PET Dassad, not in the name of
PET Sy.
o Secosa is an employee of PET Dassad, not of PET Sy. (actually, yun lang sinabi
ng court)

Award of P500,000 as moral damages is proper.
• The award is not unjust as it is justified under Art. 2206.
• RESP parents presented evidence of the searing pain they felt when the premature loss of
their son was relayed to them. They were forever deprived of a son, a son who was
nearing the culmination of every parents’ wish to educate their children.
• The amount of P500,000 finds it basis in jurisprudence.

DISPOSITIVE
Petition is PARTLY GRANTED.
PET Sy is ABSOLVED.