Case Title Filamer vs ICA

Fast Facts:
Potenciano Kapunan, Sr., an eighty-two-year old retired schoolteacher (now deceased), was struck by the
Pinoy jeep owned by petitioner Filamer and driven by its alleged employee, Funtecha as Kapunan, Sr. was
walking along Roxas Avenue, Roxas City at 6:30 in the evening of October 20, 1977.
As a result of the accident, Kapunan was hospitalized for a total of twenty days.
Evidence showed that at the time of the accident, the jeep had only one headlight functioning and that
Funtecha only had a student drivers permit, having persuaded Allan Masa, the authorized driver, to turn over
the wheels to him.
Kapunan instituted a criminal case against Funtecha alone for serious physical injuries through reckless
imprudence. He then commenced a civil case for damages naming as defendants Filamer and Funtecha. Also
included was Agustin Masa, director and president of Filamer Christian Institute. Allan Masa was not impleaded
as co-defendant.
The trial court rendered judgment finding not only Filamer and Funtecha to be at fault but also Allan Masa, a
non-party. On appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial courts decision in toto
Tortious Act: Funtechas having run over Kapunan
What is it? quasi-delict
Legal Basis:
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.
Issue:
W/N Filamer can be held liable as employer of Funtecha.
Held: No.
Ratio:
Art. 2180 provides that xxx 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.
Sec. 14. Working scholars. There is no employer-employee relationship between students on the one
hand, and schools, colleges or universities on the other, where students work for the latter in exchange for the
privilege to study free of charge; provided the students are given real opportunity, including such facilities as
may be reasonable, necessary to finish their chosen court under such arrangement. (Emphasis supplied).
It is manifest that under the just-quoted provision of law, petitioner Filamer cannot be considered as
Funtecha's employer. Funtecha belongs to that special category of students who render service to the school in
exchange for free tuition Funtecha worked for petitioner for two hours daily for five days a week. He was
assigned to clean the school passageways from 4:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. with sufficient time to prepare for his
7:30 a.m. classes. As admitted by Agustin Masa in open court, Funtecha was not included in the company
payroll.
But even if we were to concede the status of an employee on Funtecha, still the primary responsibility for
his wrongdoing cannot be imputed to petitioner Filamer for the plain reason that at the time of the accident,
it has been satisfactorily shown that Funtecha was not acting within the scope of his supposed employment.
His duty was to sweep the school passages for two hours every morning before his regular classes. Taking the
wheels of the Pinoy jeep from the authorized driver at 6:30 in the evening and then driving the vehicle in a
reckless manner resulting in multiple injuries to a third person were certainly not within the ambit of his
assigned tasks. In other words, at the time of the injury, Funtecha was not engaged in the execution of the
janitorial services for which he was employed, but for some purpose of his own. It is but fair therefore that
Funtecha should bear the full brunt of his tortious negligence. Petitioner Filamer cannot be made liable for the
damages he had caused.