SANDOVAL, MARIA TRICIA ANNE C.
In his defense, Pestano blamed the
2012037243
Article 2180 in relation to Article 2176
Gregoria Pestano and Metro Cebu Autobus
Corporation v. Spouses Sumayang G.R. No.
139875, December 04, 2000, THIRD
DIVISION, Panganiban, J.
When an injury is caused by the negligence of
a servant or an employee, the master or
employer is presumed to be negligent either in
the selection or in the supervision of that
employee. This presumption may be overcome
only by satisfactorily showing that the employer
exercised the care and the diligence of a good
father of a family in the selection and the
supervision of its employee.
FACTS
At two o’clock in the afternoon, Ananias
Sumayang was riding a motorcycle along the
national highway in Tabagon and Manuel
Romagos was riding with him. They were then
hit by a passenger bus driven by Gregorio
Pestano (petitioner) owned by Metro Cebu
Autobus Corporation (Metro cebu) which tried
to overtake the motorcycle and its passengers
hurtling upon the pavement. Both Sumayang
and his companion died from the accident.
The heirs of the deceased filed criminal charges
with civil damages againt Pestano, the driver,
Metro Cebu Autobus, as owner and operator of
the said bus and Perla compania de seguros,
insurer of metro cebu.
For the part of the deceased, there were
witnesses which testified that there was an
overspeeding bus which bumped the
motorcycle and threw the two passengers at
about 14 meters away and that the deceased
were bleeding and badly injured.
deceased for the accident. He alleges that he
honked his horn for the motorcycle to move to
the right of the highway, hence it accelerated to
overtake the motorcycle but when the bus was
only one meter behind, the motorcycle suddenly
turned left and was bumped by the bus which
was corroborated by passengers of the bus
The corporation, metro bus to give
credence to the defense of choosing Pestano
as an employee with the diligence of a good
father of the family explained that they selected
their employees carefully and that the driving
history of Pestano was taken into account
before he was hired, and that the management
gave regular lectures to drivers and conductors
touching on various topics like speeding,
parking, loading and unloading and that
vehicles were regularly checked.
The RTC held that the petitioners are
liable to the respondents and that Pestano was
negligent in driving the passenger bus because
it negligently attempted to overtake the
motorcycle negligently. The Court likewise held
that Metro Cebu was liable as Pestano’s
employer under Article 2180 under the civil
code because Metro Cebu failed to present
evidence to prove that it had observed the
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
damage and that Metro cebu had proven that it
had exercised due diligence in the supervison
of its employees and in the maintenance of
vehicles. The CA affirmed the decision of the
RTC.
ISSUE
Whether or not Metro Bus should be held liable
for the death of the deceased?
RULING

Yes. The vehicular accident was caused

by Pestano’s negligence when he attempted to
overtake the motorcycle. As a professional
driver operating the public transport bus, he
should have anticipated that overtaking at a
junction was a perilous maneuver and should
thus have exercised extreme caution. Further,
the CA was correct in attributing the accident to
a faulty speedometer and implying that the
accident could have been avoided had this
instrument been properly functioning.

Under Articles 2180 and 2176 of the

Civil Code, owners and managers are
responsible for damages caused by their
employees. When an injury is caused by the
negligence of a servant or an employee, the
master or employer is presumed to be negligent
either in the selection or in the supervision of
that employee. This presumption may be
overcome only by satisfactorily showing that the
employer exercised the care and the diligence
of a good father of a family in the selection and
the supervision of its employee.

The CA said that allowing Pestaño to ply his

route with a defective speedometer showed
laxity on the part of Metro Cebu in the operation
of its business and in the supervision of its
employees. The negligence alluded to here is in
its supervision over its driver, not in that which
directly caused the accident. The fact that
Pestaño was able to use a bus with a faulty
speedometer shows that Metro Cebu was
remiss in the supervision of its employees and
in the proper care of its vehicles. It had thus
failed to conduct its business with the diligence
required by law.