G.R. No.

158995 ISSUES: WON the spouses Vallejeras cause of action is founded

September 26, 2006 on Article 103 of the RPC as maintained by the petitioners, or derived
L.G. FOODS CORPORATION and VICTORINO GABOR, Vice- from Article 2180 of the Civil Code
President and General Manager, vs.
HON. PHILADELFA B. PAGAPONG-AGRAVIADOR, in her capacity RULING:
as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Bacolod City,  The case is a negligence suit brought under Art. 2176 NCC to
and SPS. FLORENTINO and THERESA VALLEJERA recover damages primarily from LG Foods as
employers responsible for their negligent driver
FACTS: pursuant to Art. 2180, CC.
 Charles Vallereja, a 7-year old son of the spouses Florentino  The obligation imposed by Art. 2176 is demandable not only for
Vallejera and Theresa Vallejera, was hit by a Ford Fiera van owned one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom
by LG FOODS CORP and driven at the time by their employee, one is responsible. Thus, the employer is liable for damages
Vincent Norman Yeneza y Ferrer. caused by his employees.
- Charles died as a result of the accident.
1) Nothing in the allegations in the complaint suggests that the LG
 Information for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide was Foodsare being made to account for their subsidiary liability under
filed against the driver MTCC entitled People of the Philippines v. Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code.
Vincent Norman Yeneza. - Plus, the complaint did not even aver the basic elements for
- Unfortunately, before the trial, the accused driver the subsidiary liability of an employer under said provision.
committed suicide, evidently bothered by conscience and
remorse. 2) While not explicitly stated that the suit was for damages based on
- MTCC, in its order of September 30, 1998, dismissed the quasi-delict, it alleged gross fault and negligence on the part of the
criminal case. driver and the failure of LG Foods, as employers, to exercise due
diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees.
 RTC of Bacolod City, the spouses Vallejera filed a complaint for - It was further alleged that LG Foods is civilly liable for
damages against the LG Foods Corp and President and GM as the negligence/imprudence of their driver since they failed to
employers of the deceased driver, basically alleging that as such exercise the necessary diligence required of a good father of
employers, they failed to exercise due diligence in the selection the family in the selection and supervision of their employees,
and supervision of their employees. which diligence, if exercised, could have prevented the
vehicular accident that resulted to the death of their 7-year old
PETITIONER’S ANSWER: son
 In their Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim, the petitioners as
defendants denied liability for the death of the Vallejeras' 7-year old Actions; Damages;
son, claiming that they had exercised the required due diligence in  Section 2, Rule 2, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure defines
the selection and supervision of their employees, including the cause of action as the “act or omission by which a party violates
deceased driver. the right of another.”
 They thus prayed in their Answer for the dismissal of the complaint  Such act or omission gives rise to an obligation which may come
for lack of cause of action on the part of the Vallejera couple. from law, contracts, quasi contracts, delicts or quasi-delicts.
 Corollarily, an act or omission causing damage to another may
LG FOODS ARGUMENT: give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the
 Instead, however, of the required memorandum of authorities, the offender, i.e.,
LG Foods filed a Motion to Dismiss, principally arguing that the 1) civil liability ex delicto; and
complaint is basically a "claim for subsidiary liability against an 2) independent civil liabilities, such as those
employer" under the provision of Article 103 of the RPC, as a) not arising from an act or omission complained of as
such there must first be a judgment of conviction against their felony (e.g., culpa contractual or obligations arising from
driver as a condition sine qua non to hold them liable. law; the intentional torts; and culpa aquiliana); or
 Ergo, since the driver died during the pendency of the criminal b) where the injured party is granted a right to file an action
action, the sine qua non condition for their subsidiary liability was independent and distinct from the criminal action. Either
not fulfilled, hence the of lack of cause of action on the part of the of these two possible liabilities may be enforced against
plaintiffs. the offender.
 They further argue that since the plaintiffs did not make a
reservation to institute a separate action for damages when the Torts; Quasi-Delicts; Negligence;
criminal case was filed, the damage suit in question is thereby Victims of negligence or their heirs have a choice between an
deemed instituted with the criminal action. which was already action to enforce the civil liability arising from culpa criminal under
dismissed. Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and an action for quasi-
delict (culpa aquiliana) under Articles 2176 to 2194 of the Civil
RTC: denied the motion to dismiss for lack of merit and set the case for Code.—
pre-trial.  If, as here, the action chosen is for quasi-delict, the plaintiff may
- MR having been denied by the same court in its subsequent hold the employer liable for the negligent act of its employee,
order the petitioners then went on certiorari to the CA in CA- subject to the employer’s defense of exercise of the diligence of a
G.R. SP No. 67600, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the good father of the family.
part of the trial judge in refusing to dismiss the basic complaint  On the other hand, if the action chosen is for culpa criminal, the
for damages in Civil Case No. 99-10845. plaintiff can hold the employer subsidiarily liable only upon proof of
prior conviction of its employee.
CA: denied the petition and upheld the trial court.  Article 1161 of the Civil Code provides that civil obligation arising
 Ruling that the complaint by the spouses does not purport to be from criminal offenses shall be governed by penal laws subject to
based on subsidiary liability since the basic elements of such the provision of
liability, such as conviction and insolvency of the accused 3) Article 2177 and
employee, were not even alleged in said complaint. 4) of the pertinent provision of Chapter 2, Preliminary Title on Human
 It then said that the complaint purports to exact responsibility for Relation, and of Title 18 of this Book, regulating damages.
fault or negligence under Art. 2176 of CC, which is entirely  Plainly, Article 2177 provides for the alternative remedies the
separate and distinct from civil liability arising from plaintiff may choose from in case the obligation has the possibility
negligence under the Art. 103 of RPC. of arising indirectly from the delict/crime or directly from quasi-
 Liability under Art. 2180 of CC is direct and immediate, and not delict/tort. The choice is with the plaintiff who makes known his
conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent cause of action in his initiatory pleading or complaint, and not with
employee or showing of insolvency. the defendant who can not ask for the dismissal of the plaintiff’s
cause of action or lack of it based on the defendant’s perception
 that the plaintiff should have opted to file a claim under Article 103 Civil Law; Torts and Damages; Vicarious Liability; Negligence; When by
of the Revised Penal Code. evidence the ownership of the van and Bicomong’s employment were
proved, the presumption of negligence on respondents’ part attached,
Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the liability of the employer is as the registered owner of the van and as Bicomong’s employer.—In the
direct or immediate—it is not conditioned upon prior recourse present case, it has been established that on the day of the collision —
against the negligent employee and a prior showing of insolvency or on February 25, 2003 — URC was the registered owner of the URC
of such employee.— van, although it appears that it was designated for use by NURC, as it
 Here, the complaint sufficiently alleged that the death of the was officially assigned to the latter’s Logistics Manager, Florante Soro-
couple’s minor son was caused by the negligent act of the Soro (Soro-Soro); that Bicomong was the Operations Manager of NURC
petitioners’ driver; and that the petitioners themselves were civilly and assigned to the First Cavite Industrial Estate; that there was no work
liable for the negligence of their driver for failing “to exercise the as the day was declared a national holiday; that Bicomong was on his
necessary diligence required of a good father of the family in the way home to his family in Quezon province; that the URC van was not
selection and supervision of [their] employee, the driver, which assigned to Bicomong as well, but solely for Soro-Soro’s official use; that
diligence, if exercised, would have prevented said accident.” the company ser-
_______________
Had the respondent spouses elected to sue the petitioners based on
Article 103 of RPC, they would have alleged that the guilt of the driver * SECOND DIVISION.
had been proven beyond reasonable doubt; that such accused driver is
insolvent; that it is the subsidiary liability of the defendant petitioners as
employers to pay for the damage done by their employee (driver) based 126
on the principle that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable.
 Since there was no conviction in the criminal case against the 126
driver, precisely because death intervened prior to the SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
termination of the criminal proceedings, the spouses' Greenstar Express, Inc. vs. Universal Robina Corporation
recourse was, therefore, to sue the petitioners for their direct vice vehicle officially assigned to Bicomong was a Toyota Corolla, which
and primary liability based on quasi-delict. he left at the Cavite plant and instead, he used the URC van; and that
other than the Cavite plant, there is no other NURC plant in the provinces
Besides, it is worthy to note that the petitioners, in their Answer with of Quezon, Laguna or Bicol. Applying the above pronouncement in the
Compulsory Counter-Claim, repeatedly made mention of Article 2180 of Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc. v. Abejar, 783 SCRA 368
the Civil Code and anchored their defense on their allegation that "they (2016), it must be said that when by evidence the ownership of the van
had exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of [their] and Bicomong’s employment were proved, the presumption of
employees." The Court views this defense as an admission that indeed negligence on respondents’ part attached, as the registered owner of the
the petitioners acknowledged the private respondents' cause of action van and as Bicomong’s employer. The burden of proof then shifted to
as one for quasi-delict under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. respondents to show that no liability under Article 2180 arose. This may
 All told, Civil Case No. 99-10845 is a negligence suit brought be done by proof of any of the following: 1. That they had no employment
under Article 2176 - Civil Code to recover damages primarily relationship with Bicomong; or 2. That Bicomong acted outside the
from the petitioners as employers responsible for their scope of his assigned tasks; or 3. That they exercised the diligence of a
negligent driver pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code. good father of a family in the selection and supervision of Bicomong.
 The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for Same; Same; Common Carriers; Diligence Required of Common
one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom Carriers; When the van began to swerve toward his bus, he did not
one is responsible. reduce speed nor swerve his bus to avoid collision. Instead, he
- Thus, the employer is liable for damages caused by his maintained his current speed and course, and for this reason, the
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of inevitable took place. An experienced driver who is presented with the
their assigned tasks, even though the former is not engaged same facts would have adopted an attitude consistent with a desire to
in any business or industry. preserve life and property; for common carriers, the diligence demanded
is of the highest degree.—Despite having seen Bicomong drive the URC
The circumstance that no reservation to institute a separate civil van in a precarious manner while the same was still a good 250 meters
action for damages was made when the criminal case was filed is away from his bus, Sayson did not take the necessary precautions, as
of no moment where the criminal case was dismissed without any by reducing speed and adopting a defensive stance to avert any
pronouncement having been made therein—in reality, it is as if untoward incident that may occur from Bicomong’s manner of driving.
there was no criminal case to speak of in the first place.— This is precisely his testimony during trial. When the van began to
 Citing Maniago v. CA, petitioner would argue that Civil Case No. swerve toward his bus, he did not reduce speed nor swerve his bus to
99-10845 should have been dismissed for failure of the respondent avoid collision. Instead, he maintained his current speed and course,
spouses to make a reservation to institute a separate civil action for and for this reason, the inevitable took place. An experienced driver who
damages when the criminal case against the driver was filed. The is presented with the same facts would have adopted an attitude
argument is specious. consistent with a desire to preserve life and property; for common
 To start with, the petitioners’ reliance on Maniago is obviously carriers, the diligence demanded is of the highest degree.
misplaced. Same; Same; Same; Same; The collision was certainly foreseen and
 There, the civil case was filed while the criminal case against the avoidable but Sayson took no measures to avoid it.—Sayson took no
employee was still pending. defensive maneuver whatsoever in spite of the fact that he saw
5) Here, the criminal case against the employee driver was Bicomong drive his van in a precarious manner, as far as 250 meters
prematurely terminated due to his death. away — or at a point in time and space where Sayson had all the op-

 Precisely, Civil Case No. 99-10845 was filed by the respondent

127
spouses because no remedy can be obtained by them against the
petitioners with the dismissal of the criminal case against their
VOL. 806, OCTOBER 17, 2016
driver during the pendency thereof.
127
 And for the petitioners to insist for the conviction of their driver as a
Greenstar Express, Inc. vs. Universal Robina Corporation
condition sine qua non to hold them liable for damages is to ask for
portunity to prepare and avert a possible collision. The collision was
the impossible.
certainly foreseen and avoidable but Sayson took no measures to avoid
it. Rather than exhibit concern for the welfare of his passengers and the
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
driver of the oncoming vehicle, who might have fallen asleep or suddenly
Costs against the petitioners.
fallen ill at the wheel, Sayson coldly and uncaringly stood his ground,
closed his eyes, and left everything to fate, without due regard for the
consequences. Such a suicidal mindset cannot be tolerated, for the
grave danger it poses to the public and passengers availing of
petitioners’ services. To add insult to injury, Sayson hastily fled the
scene of the collision instead of rendering assistance to the victims —
thus exhibiting a selfish, cold-blooded attitude and utter lack of concern
motivated by the self-centered desire to escape liability, inconvenience,
and possible detention by the authorities, rather than secure the well-
being of the victims of his own negligent act.
Same; Same; Same; Doctrine of Last Clear Chance; Words and
Phrases; The doctrine of last clear chance provides that where both
parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in
point of time than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine
whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident,
the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm
but failed to do so, is chargeable with the consequences arising
therefrom.—The doctrine of last clear chance provides that where both
parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in
point of time than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine
whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident,
the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm
but failed to do so, is chargeable with the consequences arising
therefrom. Stated differently, the rule is that the antecedent negligence
of a person does not preclude recovery of damages caused by the
supervening negligence of the latter, who had the last fair chance to
prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. Greenstar
Express, Inc. vs. Universal Robina Corporation, 806 SCRA 125, G.R.
No. 205090 October 17, 2016