Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50630:gr-155111-2008&amp;catid=1502&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:25:09+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 155111 - CORNELIO LAMPESA, ET AL. v. DR. JUAN DE VERA, JR., ET AL.
CORNELIO LAMPESA and DARIO COPSIYAT, Petitioners, v. DR. JUAN DE VERA, JR., FELIX RAMOS and MODESTO TOLLAS, Respondents.
This Petition for Review seeks the reversal of the Decision1 dated August 21, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 49778 which had affirmed the Decision2 dated March 22, 1995 of the Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City, Pangasinan, Branch 57, finding petitioners Cornelio Lampesa and Dario Copsiyat liable for damages on account of the injury sustained by respondent, Dr. Juan De Vera, Jr.
P/Cpl. Arthur A. Bomogao of the Benguet Integrated National Police investigated and recorded the incident in his Police Investigation Report7 dated January 17, 1989.
The defense, for its part, presented the following version of the incident: After delivering a load of vegetables, truck owner Lampesa instructed his driver, Copsiyat, to park the truck in the parking lot across the highway. While the rear of the truck was still on the pavement of the highway, an approaching passenger jeepney sideswiped the rear portion of the truck. This resulted in the dismemberment of De Vera, Jr.'s left middle finger, according to the defense.
Lampesa offered P5,000 to De Vera, Jr. as a gesture of humanitarian support, but the latter demanded P1 million although this amount was later lowered to P75,000. The parties failed to settle amicably; thus, De Vera, Jr. filed an action for damages8 against Lampesa, Copsiyat, Ramos and Tollas, as the truck owner, truck driver, jeepney owner/operator and jeepney driver, respectively.
1. Ordering Dario Copsiyat and Cornelio F. Lampesa, jointly and solidarily to pay the plaintiff the sum of P75,000.00 as moral damages; P22,000.00 as actual damages; and P15,000.00 as attorney's fees plus the costs of suit.
2. The counterclaim and cross-claim of defendant Lampesa and Copsiyat and the counterclaim and counter-cross-claim of defendants Ramos and Tollas are hereby dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the questioned Decision, dated March 22, 1995, of the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan, Branch 57, in Civil Case No. SCC-1506, is hereby AFFIRMED.
WHO BETWEEN THE TWO (2) DRIVERS (COPSIYAT WHO WAS THE ELF TRUCK DRIVER AND TOLLAS FOR THE PASSENGER JEEP) WAS NEGLIGENT?
Petitioners insist that it was Tollas, the jeepney driver, who was negligent. They maintain that Tollas should have first allowed the truck to park as he had a clear view of the scenario, compared to Copsiyat, the truck driver, who had a very limited view of the back of the truck. Lampesa also avers he did his legal duty in the selection and supervision of Copsiyat as his driver. He alleges that before hiring Copsiyat, he asked the latter if he had a professional driver's license.
For their part, respondents adopt the findings of the trial and appellate courts. They contend that it was Copsiyat who was negligent in driving the truck and the testimony of De Vera, Jr. on this matter was more than sufficient to prove the fact. De Vera, Jr. also contends that petitioners are liable for moral damages and attorney's fees under Articles 221714 and 220815 of the Civil Code.
Considering the contentions of the parties, in the light of the circumstances in this case, we are in agreement that the petition lacks merit.
Once negligence on the part of the employee is established, a presumption instantly arises that the employer was negligent in the selection and/or supervision of said employee.18 To rebut this presumption, the employer must present adequate and convincing proof that he exercised care and diligence in the selection and supervision of his employees.
Lampesa claims he did his legal duty as an employer in the selection and supervision of Copsiyat. But the record is bare on this point. It lacks any showing that Lampesa did so. Admitting arguendo that Copsiyat did show his professional license when he applied for the job of truck driver, Lampesa should not have been satisfied by the mere possession of a professional driver's license by Copsiyat. As an employer, Lampesa was duty bound to do more. He should have carefully examined Copsiyat's qualifications, experiences and record of service, if any.19 Lampesa must also show that he exercised due supervision over Copsiyat after his selection. But all he had shown on record were bare allegations unsubstantiated by evidence. Having failed to exercise the due diligence required of him as employer, Lampesa cannot avoid solidary liability for the tortuous act committed by his driver, Copsiyat.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated August 21, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 49778 is AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioners.
1 Rollo, pp. 27-34. Penned by Associate Justice Bernardo P. Abesamis, with Associate Justices Eubulo G. Verzola and Danilo B. Pine concurring.
2 CA rollo, pp. 50-56. Penned by Presiding Judge Bienvenido R. Estrada.
3 Rollo, p. 27. Bearing license plate number AVC-471.
4 Id. Bearing license plate number PGU-160.
5 Exhibit "C," folder of exhibits for the plaintiff, p. 4.
7 Exhibit "D-1," id. at 6.
8 Records, Vol. 1, pp.1-6.
9 ART. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
10 ART. 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
11 CA rollo, pp. 55-56.
14 ART. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission.
In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable.
16 Yambao v. ZuÃ±iga, G.R. No. 146173, December 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 266, 271.
18 Syki v. Begasa, G.R. No. 149149, October 23, 2003, 414 SCRA 237, 240.
19 See Yambao v. ZuÃ±iga, supra note 16 at 273-274.
20 Villanueva v. Salvador, G.R. No. 139436, January 25, 2006, 480 SCRA 39, 52.
22 Quezon City Government v. Dacara, G.R. No. 150304, June 15, 2005, 460 SCRA 243, 254.
23 ART. 2208, supra note 15.
24 See Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v. Tiongson, et al., No. L-22143, April 30, 1966, 16 SCRA 940, 947.

References: v. 
 v. 
 ART. 2176
 ART. 2180
 ART. 2217
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 ART. 2208
 v.