CASTILEX VS. VASQUEZ, JR.

FACTS:
1) Abad, a production manager of Castilex was
driving his company-issued vehicle after office
hours.
2) He took a short- cut in the rotonda and went
against the flow of traffic.
he hit Vasquez, who had a students permit,
and on a motorcycle. Vasquez died in the
hospital.
3) The civil case for damages was filed by Vasquezs
parents.

4) TC ordered Castilex to pay jointly and solidarily
the Vasquez spouses.

5) CA ruled that liability of Castilex was vicarious not
solidary contrary to TCs ruling.
CASTILEX filed the instant petition contending that the
Court of Appeals erred in:
a) applying to the case the fifth paragraph of Article
2180 of the Civil Code, instead of the fourth
paragraph thereof;
b) that as a managerial employee, ABAD was deemed
to have been always acting within the scope of his
assigned task even outside office hours because
he was using a vehicle issued to him by petitioner;
and
c) ruling that petitioner had the burden to prove that
the employee was not acting within the scope of
his assigned task.
ISSUES AND RULING:
1) WON CA erred in applying par 5 and not par 4 of
Art 2180. NO
4
th
Paragraph 5
th
Paragraph
owners and managers of an
establishment or enterprise
employers in general, whether
or not engaged in any
business or industry.
covers negligent acts of
employees committed either in
the service of the branches or
on the occasion of their
functions
encompasses negligent acts of
employees acting within the
scope of their assigned task.


a) Under the fifth paragraph of Article 2180:
b) It is necessary to establish the employer-employee
relationship;
a) Regardless of whether or not engaged in any business
or industry,
b) the plaintiff must show, to hold the employer liable,
that the employee was acting within the scope of his
assigned task when the tort complained of was
committed.
2) WON ABAD WAS WORKING WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF HIS ASSIGNED TASKS?
RULES WON Employee is acting within his assigned
tasks:
1) Operation of Employers Motor Vehicle in Going
to and From Meals:
The employer is liable if the vehicle is used to
reduce his time-off and
devote more time to the performance of his
duties.
2) Operation of Employers Vehicle in Going to and From Work
The employer is liable if he derives some special benefit such:
as more time for the performance of duties;
or that such duties require the employee to circulate in a
general area for work. (special errand or roving
commission rule).

3) Use of Employers Vehicle Outside Regular Working Hours
The employer is liable if he derives some incidental benefit.
The employer is not liable when the vehicle is used for a
personal benefit and returned to where it is normally kept.
PRESENT CASE:

1) ABAD was engaged in affairs of his own or was carrying out a
personal purpose not in line with his duties at the time he
figured in a vehicular accident.
2) It was then about 2:00 a.m. of 28 August 1988, way beyond
the normal working hours.
3) ABADs working day had ended; his overtime work had
already been completed.
4) His being at a place a haven for prostitutes, pimps, and drug
pushers and addicts, had no connection to petitioners
business; neither had it any relation to his duties as a
manager.
Since there is lack of evidence that ABAD was acting
within the scope of the functions entrusted to him,
petitioner CASTILEX had no duty to show that it
exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in
providing ABAD with a service vehicle.

Thus, justice and equity require that petitioner be
relieved of vicarious liability for the consequences of
the negligence of ABAD in driving its vehicle.