Thus, the requisites for holding an employer liable for the tort

4. ROSENDO C. CARTICIANO and ZACARIAS A. CARTICIANO vs. committed by an employee were not satisfied.
MARIO NUVAL
G.R. No. 138054 | September 28, 2000 ISSUE:
1. WON Darwin was in fact an employee of Nuval - YES
To hold an employer liable for the negligent acts of the employee, it is 2. WON Nuval should be held liable. – YES, vicarious liability.
enough to prove that the latter was hired to drive the former’s motor
vehicle. It is not necessary to show, in addition, that the employer’s RULING: The Petition is meritorious.
children were aboard the jeep when the accident happened. Once the
driver is shown to be negligent, the burden of proof to free the No Proof That Employment Was Terminated; Darwin was acting
employer from liability shifts to the latter. within the scope of his authority.
Quasi-Delicts; Torts; Employer-Employee Relationships;
FACTS:  The facts established in the case at bar show that Darwin was
On September 3, 1992 at about 9:30PM, plaintiff Zacarias Carticiano acting within the scope of the authority given him when the collision
was on his way home to Imus, Cavite. Plaintiff Zacarias, on his way occurred.
home to Imus, Cavite, was driving his father’s (plaintiff Rosendo That he had been hired only to bring respondent’s children to and from
Carticiano) Ford Laser car, traversing the coastal roads of Longos, school must be rejected.
Bacoor, Cavite.  True, this may have been one of his assigned tasks, but no
 On the same date and time, defendant Nuval’s owner-type Jeep, convincing proof was presented showing that it was his only task.
then driven by defendant Darwin was traveling on the opposite His authority was to drive Nuval’s vehicle.
direction going to Parañaque.  Third parties are not bound by the allegation that the driver
was authorized to operate the jeep only when the employer’s
When the 2 cars were about to pass one another, defendant Darwin children were on board the vehicle. Giving credence to this
veered his vehicle to his left going to the center island of the highway outlandish theory would enable employers to escape their
and occupied the lane which plaintiff Zacarias was traversing. legal liabilities with impunity. Such loophole is easy to concoct
 As a result thereof, plaintiff Zacarias’ Ford Laser collided head- and is simply unacceptable.
on with defendant Nuval’s Jeep.
 Defendant Darwin immediately fled from the scene. An employer’s main defense that at the time of the accident a certain
person was no longer his employee, having been merely hired for a few
Plaintiff Zacarias was brought to the hospital. He suffered multiple days, is inconsistent with his other argument of due diligence in the
fracture on his left leg and other injuries in his body. He underwent a leg selection of an employee.
operation and physical therapy to repair the damaged leg.  The claim of respondent that he had exercised the diligence of a
 Defendant Nuval offered P100,000.00 as compensation for the good father of a family is not borne out by the evidence. Neither is
injuries caused. Plaintiffs refused to accept the amount. it supported by logic.
 His main defense that at the time of the accident Darwin was no
Subsequently, Zacarias filed a criminal suit against defendant Darwin. longer his employee, having been merely hired for a few days, is
Zacarias also filed this present civil suit against defendants for damages. inconsistent with his other argument of due diligence in the
selection of an employee.
ZACARIAS ALLEGATIONS:
Plaintiffs alleged that the proximate cause of the accident is Once a driver is proven negligent in causing damages, the law
defendant’s Darwin recklessness in driving defendant Nuval’s jeep; presumes the vehicle owner equally negligent and imposes upon
 that on account of said recklessness of defendant Darwin, plaintiff the latter the burden of proving proper selection of employee as a
suffered damages; defense
 that defendant Darwin was an employee of defendant Nuval at  Respondent failed to show that he had satisfactorily discharged this
the time of accident; burden.
 that defendant Nuval did not exercise due diligence in the
supervision of his employee; Moreover, as revealed by the testimonies of the witnesses presented
 that defendants should he held liable for damages. during trial, respondent had other employees working for him who were
not listed in the payroll either.
NUVAL’S DEFENSE  The rather easy access which Darwin had to the keys to the vehicle
Defendant Nuval on the other hand insisted that he cannot be held of Nuval further weakened the latters cause. Nobody questioned
answerable for the acts of defendant Darwin;
the fact that the former had freely entered respondents house
 that defendant Darwin was not an employee of defendant Nuval
at the time of the accident; where the keys to the vehicle were kept.
 that defendant Darwin was hired only as casual;  The theory of Nuval that Darwin must have stolen the keys as well
 that defendant Nuval cannot be held liable for damages. as the vehicle is rather farfetched and not supported by any proof
whatsoever. It is obviously an afterthought concocted to present
Defendant Darwin (driver) [h]as failed to file his answer within the some semblance of a defense.
reglementary period.
 Consequently, he was declared in default.
Respondent Nuval’s accusation that Petitioner Zacarias Carticiano is
guilty of contributory negligence by failing to stop his car or to evade the
COURT OF APPEALS:
oncoming jeep is untenable. Both the trial and the appellate courts found
The Court of Appeals explained that in order to hold an employer liable
that the accident was caused by the fact that Darwin’s jeep suddenly
for the negligent acts of an employee under Article 2180 of the Civil
veered towards Zacarias lane when the vehicles were about to pass
Code, it must be shown that the employee was "acting within the scope
each other, thus making it difficult if not impossible for petitioner to avoid
of his assigned task when the tort complained of was committed."7
the head-on collision.
 The ER in this case, Respondent Mario Nuval, cannot be held liable
for the tort committed by Darwin. WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision
o First, appellants did not present evidence showing is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the trial court’s
that the driver was indeed an employee of Nuval at
Decision REINSTATED, except that the award of ₱100,000 for lost
the time the accident occurred. "income or opportunities" is DELETED.
o And second, even assuming arguendo that Darwin was
in fact an employee of Nuval, it was not shown that the
former was acting within the scope of his assigned
task when the incident happened.

TORTS CASES (ATTY. TORALBA-March 15) 1