Siriban et al vs Cababa 10 CAR 654 (note: Cababa and Cabbab are different persons. Hindi ito typo.

Yes I know, weird mga pangalan nila.) Facts One early morning, Mariano Taguba was driving a truck(Alfonso Cababa owns this, so lets call this the Cababa truck) on its way to Aparri. Behind it was another truck being driven by Alfonso Cabbab. At that time, a calesa was coming from the opposite direction. However, according to Damaso Quizzagan (passenger of Cababa truck) the calesa was bumped by the driven by Cabbab which was overtaking the Cababa truck. As a consequence, it swerved towards the Cababa bus and bumped it which caused it to fall into a ditch nearby. The plaintiffs, Siriban sisters were on the way to mass when this happened. Myriam Siribans leg was pinned down by the Cababa truck while Milagros was also injured. Because of the injuries they sustained, the Siriban sisters filed an action for damages against Alfonso Cababa, Leon Taguba, Mariano Taguba(registered owner and the then driver respectively) Alfonso Cabbab, Rafael Pentrante, and Balbino Remigio (driver and registered owner respectively) The Trial court found all the defendants liable jointly and severally to the Siriban sisters. Hence this appeal Issue: Who among the defendants, is or are liable to plaintiffs? Held: Mariano Taguba is liable. However, being a minor, his father will be liable for his acts. Alfonso Cababa is the owner of the Cababa truck. At the time of the accident, it was driven by Mariano Taguba who was not only an unlicensed driver but also not an employee of Alfonso Cababa. Actually, it was his father, Leon who was employed by Cababa as a driver. According to Mariano Taguba himself, he drove the truck neither with the knowledge and permission of his father Leon nor of Alfonso Cababa. While under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the owner of the truck could be held liable for the negligence of its employees, it is important to note that Mariano Taguba is not an employee of Cababa.

According to Cammarota, the liability of an employer depends upon the existence of three essential requisites: 1) that the employee was chosen by the employer, personally or through another; 2) that the services are 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. The SC held in the case of Duquillo vs Bayot that the owner of the truck engaged in transportation business, is not liable for death resulting from an accident where the vehicle at the time of the mishap was driven without his consent or knowledge by one who is not his employee or chauffeur in charge of driving it. In the instant case, the driver employed by appellant Cababa was Leon Taguba. Mariano Taguba was not employed as such or in any capacity by the owner thereof. What is worse, Mariano drove the truck on his own initiative, without the knowledge and consent either of his father of Alfonso Cababa. Since at the time the accident occurred, he was only 19 years old. Being a minor then, for majority commences upon the attainment of the age of 21 years (note that the accident happened on 1954 and the decision was promulgated on 1966) his father is responsible for the damage caused by him, it appearing that he lived with his father. That Mariano lived with his father at the time of the accident, could be gleaned from his admission to the effect that the Cababa truck was parked at their home; that its key was kept in their aparador; and that he frequently saw his father keeping it there. With respect to appellants Cabbab, Remigio and Penetrante, could they also be held civilly liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs considering that Cabbab has been acquitted from all criminal responsibility in a final judgment rendered in the CFI? No. Based on the testimony of police corporal Velasco, it was clear that Cabbab did not bump the truck being driven by Mariano Taguba. He also testified that there was no mark or dent in the truck of Cabbab that would be an evidence that he actually hit the truck being driven by Taguba. The extinction of the penal action against Cabbab carried with it the extinction of the civil, for there is no fact from which the civil would have arisen. An acquittal on the ground that the accused was not the author of the act complained of is a far cry from an acquittal based merely on a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused committed the act or not. The second case leaves the way open for a civil action under the present article, but the first case closes the door to civil liability, for a person who has been found to be not the author of an act can never be held liable for such act. For the same reason, if the judgment in the criminal case declared definitely that the supposed act attributed to the accused did not exist, this finding, resulting in an acquittal would bar a civil action for damages against the accused.