Fontanilla V Maliaman (1989-1991)

Labor Law Review |Sobrevinas | August December 2014|Page 1
Sps. Fontanilla v. Maliaman

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household
helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even the though the former are not
engaged in any business or industry.
Date: February 27, 1991
Ponente: Paras, J. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not
when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly
FACTS: pertains, in which case what is provided in Art. 2176 shall be applicable.
On August 21, 1976 at about 6:30 P.M., a pickup owned and operated by the
National Irrigation Administration (NIA), then driven officially by Hugo The liability of the State has two aspects, namely:
Garcia, an employee of NIA (as its regular driver, possessing a professional 1. Its public or governmental aspects where it is liable for the tortious acts
drivers license), bumped a bicycle ridden by Francisco Fontanilla (son of Jose of special agents only.
and Virginia Fontanilla) and Restituto Deligo. As a result of the impact, 2. Its private or business aspects (as when it engages in private enterprises)
Francisco and Restituto were injured and brought to the San Jose City where it becomes liable as an ordinary employer.
Emergency Hospital for treatment. Francisco was later transferred to the
Cabanatuan Provincial Hospital where he died. In our jurisdiction, the State assumes only limited liability for the damage
caused by the tortious acts or conduct of its special agent. The State's agent, if
As a result, on April 1978, the spouses Fontanilla filed before the CFI Nueva a public official, must not only be specially commissioned to do a particular
Ecija a complaint against NIA for damages in connection with the death of task but that such task must be foreign to said official's usual governmental
Francisco. The CFI rendered a decision favorable to the Fontanillas, directing functions. If the State's agent is not a public official, and is commissioned to
NIA to pay damages (death benefits) and actual expenses. NIA filed an MR but perform non-governmental functions, then the State assumes the role of an
was denied. NIA appealed to the CA, where it filed its brief. However, the ordinary employer and will be held liable as such for its agent's tort. Where
Fontanillas filed an instant petition to the SC instead of filing its brief with the the government commissions a private individual for a special governmental
CA alongside the NIA. task, it is acting through a special agent within the meaning of the provision.
ISSUES/HELD: Certain functions and activities performed only by the government are more
1. WON NIA should be held liable for the award of moral damages, or less generally agreed to be "governmental" in character, and so the State is
exemplary damages and attorney's fees, based on quasi-delict committed immune from tort liability. On the other hand, a service which might as well
by its employee, resulting in the death of the son of the Fontanillas. YES. be provided by a private corporation, and particularly when it collects
revenues from it, the function is considered "proprietary", and there may be
RATIO: liability for the torts of agents within the scope of their employment.
The Court answered the issue by applying the provisions of Articles 2176 and
2180 of the NCC, stated as follows: The NIA is an agency of the government exercising proprietary functions by
express provision of the charter that created it RA 3601 describes NIA as a
Article 2176 states: body corporate. Therefore, the NIA is a government corporation with
Whoever by act omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged juridical personality and not just a mere agency of the government. Since it is
to pay for damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation a corporate body performing non-governmental functions, it now becomes
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
liable for the damage caused by the accident resulting from the tortious act of
its employee. In this particular case, the NIA assumes the responsibility of an
Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 2180 read as follows: ordinary employer and as such, it becomes answerable for damages.
Labor Law Review |Sobrevinas | August December 2014|Page 2
The Court then took into its cudgels the issue of negligence, specifically,
negligence of supervision on the part of NIA. As stated, Par. 5 of Article 2180
of the NCC states that an ordinary employer is responsible for damages
caused by its employees provided that it has failed to observe or exercise
due diligence in the selection and supervision of the driver.
Considering the facts of the case, it was shown that there was indeed
negligence in NIAs supervision of the driver for the reason that it was shown
by at the lower court that the group of Garcia was travelling at a high speed
within the city limits and yet the supervisor of the group, Ely Salonga, failed
to caution and make the driver observe the proper and allowed speed limit
within the city. The negligence was further aggravated by their desire to
reach their destination without even checking whether or not the vehicle
suffered damage from the object it bumped, thus showing imprudence and
recklessness on the part of both the driver and the supervisor in the group.
Citing a number of cases, the Court has ruled that even if the employer can
prove the diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee, if the
employer ratifies the wrongful acts, or take no step to avert further damage,
the employer would still be liable.
DISPOSITION:
Considering the foregoing, respondent NIA is hereby directed to pay herein
petitioners-spouses the amounts of P12,000.00 for the death of Francisco
Fontanilla; P3,389.00 for hospitalization and burial expenses of the
aforenamed deceased; P30,000.00 as moral damages; P8,000.00 as
exemplary damages and attorney's fees of 20% of the total award.
NOTE: A succeeding Motion for Reconsideration from the SC decision was

filed by the NIA. The Motion, however, was denied with finality, applying the
doctrine that NIA is a government agency invested with a separate corporate
personality, distinct from the government.

Fontanilla V Maliaman (1989-1991)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fontanilla V Maliaman (1989-1991)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fontanilla V Maliaman (1989-1991)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor Law Review |Sobrevinas | August December 2014|Page 1

Sps. Fontanilla v. Maliaman

NOTE: A succeeding Motion for Reconsideration from the SC decision was

You might also like