Chapter 3 Cases: January 24, 2014 Reporting

1. LUCIA EUROPA VS HUNTER GARMENTS MFG. PHIL. INC. (HUNTER) G.R. No. 72827 18 July 1989

Facts:

In 1973, petitioner’s daughter, Lucrecia Europa, was employed as sample maker by the private respondent (Hunter). Sometime in the course of her employment, Lucrecia got electrocuted by the high speed sewing machine which was assigned to her by Hunter. On 18 July 1980, petitioner filed an action for damages against Hunter based on quasi-delict. The trial court rendered judgment against the respondent. It ordered the latter to pay the following:

a) for the death of Lucrecia, the sum of P12,000.00;

b) for actual expenses for the wake, the funeral and burial expenses and other miscellaneous expenses, the sum of P5,580.00;

c) for loss of income, the sum of P30,000.00;

d) for moral damages, the sum of P10,000.00;

e) for attorney's fees, the sum of P5,000.00; and pay the costs.

Issue:

WON there was gross negligence on the part of the respondent as expressed in the judgment of the trial court

WON the respondent should pay damages

Held:

Yes.

Article 2202 of the New Civil Code provides that, in actions based on quasi-delict as in this case, all damages for the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of are recoverable.

There are at least two incidents, where high speed sewing machines of the defendant corporation were grounded. These incidents were brought to the attention of the management of the defendant corporation. Apparently, nothing was done by way of checking these grounded machines.

The defendant corporation does not employ a duly-licensed electrical engineer but only has three (3) electricians whose services clearly proved inadequate for maintaining the safety of the machines in the factory.

There is no indication that the management had ever shown any serious concern for the safety of those operating said machines. As it was, the defendant corporation even tended to be apathetic to the plight of its employees manning the factory sewing machines. The facts and circumstances of the case point to the reasonableness of the damages awarded. There is an express finding of gross negligence on the part of private respondent.

2. GILBERTO M. DUAVIT vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ANTONIO SARMIENTO, SR. & VIRGILIO CATUAR

G.R. No. 82318 May 18, 1989

Facts:

Antonio Sarmiento, Sr. and Virgilio Catuar were aboard a jeep. While approaching Roosevelt Avenue, Virgilio Catuar slowed down. Suddenly, another jeep driven by defendant Oscar Sabiniano hit and bumped Catuar’s jeep. The latter fell on its right and skidded by about 30 yards, Catuar sustained injuries because he was thrown to the middle of the road. Like wise, Sarmiento, Sr. was trapped inside the fallen jeep, and one of his legs was fractured. The jeep itself had to be repaired because of extensive damage.

A case was filed against Sabiniano as driver and against Duavit as owner of the jeep. Duavit admitted ownership of the jeep but denied that Sabiniano was his employee. Sabiniano himself admitted that he took Duavit’s jeep from the garage without consent or authority of Duavit.

The trial court found Sabiniano negligent in driving the vehicle but absolved Duavit on the ground that there wasno employer-employee relationship between them, and that former took the vehicle without consent or authority of the latter. CA held the two of them jointly and severally liable.

Issue:

Whether or not the owner of a private vehicle which figured in an accident can be held liable under Article2180 of the New Civil Code when the said vehicle was neither driven by an employee of the owner nor taken with the consent of the latter.

Held:

No.

In Duquillo v Bayot  (1939), SC ruled that an owner of a vehicle cannot be held liable for an accident involving a vehicle if the same was driven without his consent or knowledge and by a person not employed by him. This ruling is still relevant and applicable, and hence, must be upheld.

Petitioner does not deny ownership of the vehicle involved in tire mishap but completely denies having employed the driver Sabiniano or even having authorized the latter to drive his jeep. The jeep was virtually stolen from the petitioner's garage. To hold, therefore, the petitioner liable for the accident caused by the negligence of Sabiniano who was neither his driver nor employee would be absurd as it would be like holding liable the owner of a stolen vehicle for an accident caused by the person who stole such vehicle

As in this case, the records of the petition fail to indicate the slightest indicia of an employer-employee relationship between the owner and the erring driver or any consent given by the owner for the vehicle's use, the owner cannot be held liable.