CASTILEX INDUSTRIAL CORP. vs. VASQUEZ JR. GR No. No. 1322 132266 66 | Dece Decemb mber er 21, 21, 1999 999 | Davi Davide de Jr., Jr., C.J. C.J. | Petit Petitio ion n for for Revi Review ew on Certiorari of a Decision of the CA Petitioners: Petitioners: Castilex Castilex Indust Industrial rial Corp. Respondents: Vicente Vasquez Jr., Luisa So Vasquez & Cebu Doctors’ Hospital, Inc. Facts: On Augu August st 28, 28, 1988 1988,, at arou around nd 1:30 1:30 to 2 AM, AM, Ro Rome meo o So Va Vasq sque uez z wa was s driving a Honda motorcycle around Fuente Osme Osmeña ña Ro Rotu tund nda. a. He was trav travel elli ling ng coun counte ter-c r-clo lock ckwi wise se,, the the norm normal al flow flow of traffic, but without any protective helmet or goggles. He was only carry rrying a Student’s Permit to Drive. Benj Be njam amin in Abad Abad,, a Prod Produc ucti tion on Mana Manage gerr of Ca Cast stil ilex ex Indu Indust stri ries es Co Corp rp,, a busin business ess engage engaged d in the manufa manufactu cturin ring g and selling of furniture, was then driving the company-owned Toyota Hi-Lux Pick-up. Abad drove the said car out of the parking parking lot of Goldie’s Goldie’s Restaurant Restaurant where he had some snacks after working overtime and had a chat with his friends. Inst Instea ead d of goin going g arou around nd the the Osme Osmeña ña Rotunda, he made a short cut against the flow of the traffic in proceeding to general Maxilom St. or to Belvic St. In the process, a collision occu occurr rred ed betw betwee een n the the mo moto torc rcyc ycle le and and Toyota Hi-Luz Pick-up. Vasquez sustained severe injuries as a result of the collision. Abad Abad stop stoppe ped d his his vehi vehicl cle e and and brought brought Vasquez Vasquez to the Southern islands Hospit Hospital al and later later to the Cebu Doctor Doctor’s ’s Hospital. On September 5, 1988, Vasquez died at the Cebu Doctor’s Hospital. Abad signed an acknowledgement of Responsible party where he agreed to pay whatever whatever hospital hospital bills bills professio professional nal fees and other incidental charges Vasquez may incur. A criminal case was filed against Abad which which was subseque subsequently ntly dismisse dismissed d for failure to prosecute. The Spouses Spouses Vasquez Vasquez institute instituted d an action for damages against Abad and Castilex. Cebu Doctors’ Hospital interv intervene ened d to colle collect ct unpaid unpaid balanc balance e for the the me medi dica call expe expens nse e give given n to Ro Rome meo o Vasquez. TC: ordered Abad and Castilex to pay jointly and severally the spouses and Cebu Doctors’ Hospital
CA: affirmed affirmed the TC’s ruling ruling but but held held the liabil liability ity of Cas Castil tilex ex as vicari vicarious ous and not solidary with Abad Issue: 1. WON Castilex is vicariously liable with Abad WON Abad Abad was perfor performin ming g acts acts 2. within the range of his employment Ratio: 1. YES The The phra phrase se “eve “even n thou though gh the the former are not engaged in any business or indust industry” ry” found found in the 5 th paragraph1 of Article 2180 should be interpreted to mean that it is not necessary for the employer to be engaged in any business or industry to be liable for the negligence of his employee who is acting within the scope of his assigned task. Distincti Distinctions ons between between paragraph paragraph 42 and 5 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 5
owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise covers negligent acts of employees committ committed ed either either in the the service of the bran branch ches es or on the the occasion of their functions
employers in genera general, l, whether whether or not not enga engaged ged in any any business or industry encompasses negligen gent acts cts of emplo mploye yees es acti acting ng withi within n the scope scope of their assigned task
expansion of paragr paragraph aph 4 in both both empl em ploy oyer er cove covera rage ge and acts included. negligent acts of employee employees, s, whether whether or not the employer employer is engaged in a business or industry, are covered covered so long long as they they were were acti acting ng with within in the the scop scope e of their their assigne assigned d task, task, even though committed neither in 1
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their their employ employees ees and househ household old helper helpers s acting acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the the form former er are are not not enga engage ged d in any any busi busine ness ss or industry. 2
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterp enterpris rise e are likewi likewise se respon responsib sible le for damage damages s caus caused ed by thei theirr em empl ploy oyee ees s in the the serv servic ice e of the the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
the service of the branches nor on the occasion of their functions.
Whether or not engaged in any business or industry, an employer is liable for the torts committed by employees within the scope of his assigned tasks. But it is necessary to establish the employeremployee relationship; once this is done, 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. It is only then that the employer may find it necessary to interpose the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee.
2. NO
There is no absolutely hard and fast rule can be stated which will furnish the complete answer to the problem of whether at a given moment, an employee is engaged in his employer's business in the operation of a motor vehicle, so as to fix liability upon the employer because of the employee's action or inaction; but rather, the result varies with each state of facts. In Filamer Christian vs. IAC, the SC held that: acts done within the scope of the employee's assigned tasks includes "any act done by an employee in furtherance of the interests of the employer or for the account of the employer at the time of the infliction of the injury or damages. The mere fact that Abad was using a service vehicle at the time of the injurious incident is not of itself sufficient to charge petitioner with liability for the negligent operation of said vehicle unless it appears that he was operating the vehicle within the course or scope of his employment. Operation of Operation of Use of Employer’s Employer’s Employer’s Motor Vehicle in Vehicle Vehicle in Going to or Outside Going to or From Work Regular From Meals Working Hours employee is not ordinarily acting within the scope of his
traveling to and from the place of work is ordinarily a
employer is not generally liable for the employee's
employment in the absence of evidence of some special business benefit to the employer
personal problem or concern of the employee, and not a part of his services to his employer
evidence that by using the employer's vehicle to go to and from meals, an employee is enabled to reduce his time-off and so devote more time to the performance of his duties supports the finding that an employee is acting within the scope of his employment while so driving the vehicle
in the absence of some special benefit to the employer other than the mere performance of the services available at the place where he is needed, the employee is not acting within the scope of his employment even though he uses his employer's motor vehicle
special errand or roving commission employee continues in the service of his employer until he actually reaches home employer is not liable, even if the employee is deemed to be acting within the scope of his employment, when the employee has left the direct
negligent operation of the vehicle during the period of permissive use, even where the employer contemplates that a regularly assigned motor vehicle will be used by the employee for personal as well as business purposes and there is some incidental benefit to the employer
route of his work or back home and is pursuing a personal errand of his own
Although the aforementioned principles of Americam common law are based on the doctrine of respondeat superior , they are still applicable in this jurisdiction. Before the collision occurred, Abad had snacks and a chat with his friends at Goldie’s Restaurant, which is 7 km away from Castilex. Fuente Osmeña is known as a lively place where prostitutes, pimps and drug addicts littered. At the time of the vehicular accident, Abad was with a woman in his car who shouted: “Daddy, Daddy!”. 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. It was then about 2:00 a.m. of 28 August 1988, way beyond the normal working hours. Hence, Castilex has no duty to show that it exercised the diligence of a good father of the family in providing Abad with a service vehicle. Dispositive: Petition is granted. CA decision and resolution is affirmed with modification that Castilex is absolved from liability.
