Hermana R. Cerezo vs.

David Tuazon
G.R. No. 141538 March 23, 2004

CARPIO, J.

Facts:
On June 23, 1993, a Country Bus Liner collided with a tricycle. The rider of the tricycle
is the respondent David Tuazon. Tuazon filed a civil case before the Regional Trial Court in
Angeles City for indemnification of the accident for his medical expenses, repairs and other
damages against Hermana R. Cerezo, owner of the Bus Liner; Tuazon moved to litigate as a
pauper and he no longer sought to file a case against the driver of the bus Danilo A. Foronda.

Mrs. Cerezo responded by alleging that she was being defrauded by Tuazon, questioned
the motion for litigation as a pauper of Tuazon, and questioned the jurisdiction of the RTC
because of failure of serving summons to Foronda. The RTC held that Tuazon has no real
propert, only living in a regular 300 peso allowance he receives from his son in Malaysia and
jobless at the time of the accident, thus qualifying him as a pauper litigant. The RTC also ruled
that Foronda need not to be summoned because Tuazon filed an action for damages through a
quasi-delict, thus holding Foronda and Mrs. Cerezo solidarily liable. The Court of Appels
affirmed the ruling, the Supreme Court also affirmed the same. In an attempt to avoid liability,
Mrs. Cerezo initiated a petition for annulment of judgement of the Court of Appeals, but was
denied just the same for lack of merit, hence this instant petition for review.

Issue:
Whether or not Hermana Cerezo and Danilo Foronda incurred Solidary Liability

Ruling:
Yes, because Tuazon filed an action for damages incurred through a quasi-delict,
corroborated by the allegation stating that the driver acted with reckless and negligent behavior,
while the respondent was acting with care while riding the tricycle. In actions for quasi-delicts,
both the employee and employer are held with solidary liability.

Article 2180 of the Civil Code contemplates that employers shall be held liable for the
damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though
the former is not engaged in any business of industry. In these considerations, quasi-delicts
render both the employee and employer equally liable; the liability of an employer is direct in
civil cases, should it have been a criminal cases, considering delicts, Foronda could have been
directly liable and Mrs. Cerezo will incur subsidiary liability; but Tuazon filed a civil action
instead. Hence, Foronda need not to be summoned as he is not an indispensable party in the case,
it could have been the contrary in a criminal case.

In conclusion, this petition for review of the appellate courts decision of denying the
petition for annulment of judgement is affirmed; the petitioner failed to prove any fraud or
mistake on the part of the Court of Appeals decision.