is within the scope of his assigned task regardless
of the time and circumstances.
FACTS: On February 2, 1930, a passenger
truck and an automobile of private ownership collided while attempting to pass each other on a bridge. The truck was driven by the chauffeur Abelardo Velasco, and was owned by saturnine Cortez. The automobile was being operated by Bonifacio Gutierrez, a lad 18 years of age, and was owned by Bonifacios father and mother, Mr. and Mrs. Manuel Gutierrez. At the time of the collision, the father was not in the car, but the mother, together with several other members of the Gutierrez family were accommodated therein.
ISSUE: Whether or not CASTILEX may be held
vicariously liable for the death resulting from the negligent operation by their manager of a company issued vehicle
The collision between the bus and the
automobile resulted in Narciso Gutierrez suffering a fractured right leg which required medical attendance for a considerable period of time. ISSUE: Whether or not both the driver of the truck and automobile are liable for damages and indemnification due to their negligence. What are the legal obligations of the defendants? HELD: Bonifacio Gutierrezs obligation arises from culpa aquiliana. On the other hand, Saturnino Cortezs and his chauffeur Abelardo Velascos obligation rise from culpa contractual. The youth Bonifacio was na incompetent chauffeur, that he was driving at an excessive rate of speed, and that, on approaching the bridge and the truck, he lost his head and so contributed by his negligence to the accident. The guaranty given by the father at the time the son was granted a license to operate motor vehicles made the father responsible for the acts of his son. Based on these facts, pursuant to the provisions of Art. 1903 of the Civil Code, the father alone and not the minor or the mother would be liable for the damages caused by the minor. The liability of Saturnino Cortez, the owner of the truck, and his chauffeur Abelardo Velasco rests on a different basis, namely, that of contract. CASTILEX Industrial Corp. vs. Vicente Vasquez & Cebu Doctors Hospital G.R. 132266 DEC 21,1999 FACTS: Romeo Vasquez who was driving his motorcycle collided with a company car owned by CASTILEX driven by Abad who is the manager of which. The parent of Romeo filed a case for damages against Abad and CASTILEX Corporation. The RTC ruled in favor of the Vasquezes holding that Abad and CASTILEX are jointly and solidarily liable. On appeal the CA affirmed holding that the driving by a manager of a company issued vehicle
HELD: The SC held that CASTILEX is not
liable for the act committed by Abad for Abad was carrying out a personal purpose not in line with his duties and it was beyond the normal working hours when the accident happened. Abad was in a place which is a haven for prostitutes, pimps, and drug pushers and addicts which had no connection to CASTILEX business; neither does it have any relation to his duties as a manager. In the absence of some special benefit to the employer, the employee is not acting within the scope of his employment even though he uses his employers motor vehicle. Furthermore, since Abad was not in the scope of his functions, CASTILEX had no duty to show that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in providing Abad with a service vehicle.
EXCONDE v. CAPUNO G.R. no. L-10134 JUN
29, 1957 FACTS: Dante Capuno was a 15 year old boy who was a pupil of Balintawak Elementary School. In March 1949, he attended a boy scout parade for Dr. Jose Rizal. While they were inside a jeep, he took control of the wheels which he later lost control of causing the jeep to go turtle thereby killing two other students, Isidoro Caperina and one other. Isidoros mother, Sabina Exconde, sued Dante Capuno for the death of her son. Pending the criminal action, the mother reserved her right to file a separate civil action which she subsequently filed against Dante and his dad, Delfin Capuno. ISSUE: Whether or not Delfin Capuno, as the father of Dante is liable for damages. HELD: Yes. The civil liability which the law imposes upon the father, and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, for any damages that may be caused by the minor children who live with them, is obvious. This is necessary consequence of the parental authority they exercise over them which imposes upon the parents the duty of supporting them, keeping them in their company, educating them and instructing them in proportion to their means, while, on the other hand, gives them the right to correct and punish them in moderation. The only way by which they can relieve themselves of this liability is if they prove
that they exercised all the diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent the damage which Delfin failed to prove. On the other hand, the school is not liable. It is true that under the law, teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for any damages caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody, but this provision only applies to an institution of arts and trades and not to any academic educational institution. JUSTICE J.B.L. REYES Dissenting: Delfin Capuno should be relieved from liability. There is no sound reason for limiting
the liability to teachers of arts and trades
and not to academic ones. What substantial difference is there between them in so far as, concerns the proper supervision and vigilance over their pupils? It cannot be seriously contended that an academic teacher is exempt from the duty of watching do not commit a tort to the detriment of third persons, so long as they are in a position to exercise authority and supervision over the pupil.