Caravan Travel and Tours International vs. Ermilinda Abejar, G.R. No. 170631 [Case Digest]

 

Caravan Travel and Tours International vs. Ermilinda Abejar,

G.R. No. 170631, February 10, 2016

Facts:

Jesmariane R. Reyes (Reyes) was walking along the west-bound lane of Sampaguita Street, United Parañaque Subdivision IV, Parañaque City. A Mitsubishi L-300 van was travelling along the east-bound lane, opposite Reyes. To avoid an incoming vehicle, the van swerved to its left and hit Reyes. Alex Espinosa (Espinosa), a witness to the accident, went to her aid and loaded her in the back of the van. Espinosa told the driver of the van, Jimmy Bautista (Bautista), to bring Reyes to the hospital. Instead of doing so, Bautista appeared to have left the van parked inside a nearby subdivision with Reyes still in the van. Fortunately for Reyes, an unidentified civilian came to help and drove Reyes to the hospital.

Upon investigation, it was found that the registered owner of the van was Caravan.  Caravan is a corporation engaged in the business of organizing travels and tours. Bautista was Caravan's employee assigned to drive the van as its service driver.

 

Caravan shouldered the hospitalization expenses of Reyes. Despite medical attendance, Reyes died two (2) days after the accident.

 

Respondent Ermilinda R. Abejar (Abejar), Reyes' paternal aunt and the person who raised her since she was nine (9) years old, filed before the RTC Parañaque a Complaint for damages against Bautista and Caravan. In her Complaint, Abejar alleged that Bautista was an employee of Caravan and that Caravan is the registered owner of the van that hit Reyes.

 

Caravan adds that Abejar offered no documentary or testimonial evidence to prove that Bautista, the driver, acted "within the scope of his assigned tasks" when the accident occurred. According to Caravan, Bautista's tasks only pertained to the transport of company personnel or products, and when the accident occurred, he had not been transporting personnel or delivering products of and for the company.

 

 

Issue:

            Whether or not petitioner should be held liable as an employer, pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

 

 

Held:

            YES. Contrary to petitioner's position, it was not fatal to respondent's cause that she herself did not adduce proof that Bautista acted within the scope of his authority. It was sufficient that Abejar proved that petitioner was the registered owner of the van that hit Reyes.

 

The resolution of this case must consider two (2) rules. First, Article 2180's specification that "[e]mployers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees . . . acting within the scope of their assigned tasks[.]" Second, the operation of the registered-owner rule that registered owners are liable for death or injuries caused by the operation of their vehicles.

 

These rules appear to be in conflict when it comes to cases in which the employer is also the registered owner of a vehicle. Article 2180 requires proof of two things: first, an employment relationship between the driver and the owner; and second, that the driver acted within the scope of his or her assigned tasks. On the other hand, applying the registered-owner rule only requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant-employer is the registered owner of the vehicle.

 

The registered-owner rule was articulated as early as 1957 in Erezo, et al. v. Jepte, where this court explained that the registration of motor vehicles, as required by Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 4136, the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, was necessary "not to make said registration the operative act by which ownership in vehicles is transferred, . . . but to permit the use and operation of the vehicle upon any public highway[.]" Its "main aim . . . is to identify the owner so that if any accident happens, or that any damage or injury is caused by the vehicle on the public highways, responsibility therefor can be fixed on a definite individual, the registered owner."