Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 96 views

    Lanuzo vs. Ping and Mendoza

    Uploaded by

    KC Torayno
    The employee driver was primarily liable for his own negligence under the Civil Code. The employer was also primarily liable under the Civil Code for damages caused by employees acting within the scope of their work, even if he was not engaged in business. The employer failed to rebut the presumption of negligence in selecting and supervising the employee. While jointly and severally liable, the employer could seek reimbursement from the employee. The civil suit for damages based on quasi-delict could proceed independently of the criminal case for reckless imprudence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lanuzo vs. Ping and Mendoza

    Uploaded by

    KC Torayno
    96 views3 pages
    The employee driver was primarily liable for his own negligence under the Civil Code. The employer was also primarily liable under the Civil Code for damages caused by employees acting within the scope of their work, even if he was not engaged in business. The employer failed to rebut the presumption of negligence in selecting and supervising the employee. While jointly and severally liable, the employer could seek reimbursement from the employee. The civil suit for damages based on quasi-delict could proceed independently of the criminal case for reckless imprudence.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The employee driver was primarily liable for his own negligence under the Civil Code. The employer was also primarily liable under the Civil Code for damages caused by employees acting within the scope of their work, even if he was not engaged in business. The employer failed to rebut the presumption of negligence in selecting and supervising the employee. While jointly and severally liable, the employer could seek reimbursement from the employee. The civil suit for damages based on quasi-delict could proceed independently of the criminal case for reckless imprudence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    96 views3 pages

    Lanuzo vs. Ping and Mendoza

    Uploaded by

    KC Torayno
    The employee driver was primarily liable for his own negligence under the Civil Code. The employer was also primarily liable under the Civil Code for damages caused by employees acting within the scope of their work, even if he was not engaged in business. The employer failed to rebut the presumption of negligence in selecting and supervising the employee. While jointly and severally liable, the employer could seek reimbursement from the employee. The civil suit for damages based on quasi-delict could proceed independently of the criminal case for reckless imprudence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Torts and Damages digest pool

    G.R. No. L-53064 September 25, 1980

    Lanuzo vs. Ping and Mendoza

    Nature of Liability: Joint or Solidary?


     Employer is solidarily liable for the fault or negligence of his employees

     For failure of the appellant Sy Bon Ping to rebut the legal presumption of his negligence in
    the selection and supervision of this employee,  he is likewise responsible for the
    damages caused by the negligent act of his employee (driver) Salvador Mendoza, and his
    liability is primary and solidary.
    Under Article 2180 of the NCC: 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.

    Facts:
     Salvador Mendoza was driving the truck along the national highway in the Barrio of San
    Ramon, Nabua, Camarines Sur, and because of his reckless negligence, it rammed into the
    residential house and store of plaintiff.
    o As alleged therein, at about five o'clock in the afternoon of July 24, 1969
     The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that another action, Criminal Case No. 4250
    for Damage to Property through Reckless Imprudence, was pending in the Municipal Court of
    Nabua, Camarines Sur, between the same parties for the same cause.
    o Plaintiff opposed the dismissal stressing that he had made an express reservation in
    the criminal case to institute a civil action for damages separate and distinct from the
    criminal suit.
     As a result, the house and store were completely razed to the ground causing damage to
    plaintiff in the total amount of P 13,000.00
     Lanuzo averred that by reason thereof he became destitute as he lost his means of livelihood
    from the store which used to give him a monthly income of P300.00
     A complaint for damages was instituted in the CFI of Camarines Sur by plaintiff Felix Lanuzo
    against Sy Bon Ping, the owner and operator of a freight truck, and his driver, Salvador
    Mendoza.
     Defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that another action, Criminal Case for Damage to
    Property through Reckless Imprudence was pending in the Municipal Court of Nabua,
    Camarines Sur between the same parties for the same cause.
     Plaintiff opposed the dismissal stressing that he had made an express reservation in the
    criminal case to institute a civil action for damages separate and distinct from the criminal
    suit.
     Lower Court: Dismissed and ordered Sy Bon Ping and Salvador Mendoza jointly and
    severally
     Defendants: Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial and to set aside order of default”
    was denied.
     Court of Appeals defendants urged that the civil action was prematurely instituted in view of
    Rule 111, section 3, providing in part that “after the criminal action has been commenced the
    civil action cannot be instituted until final judgment has been rendered in the criminal action.”
     And then LC committed an error in holding them jointly and severally liable.
     On February 20, 1980 – the CA certified the case to this instance on pure questions of law

    Issue: W/N the employee and the employer should be held jointly and severally liable

    Ponente: Melencio-Herrera, J.

    Digest Maker: TORAYNO, KRIZTIA CREDENDA


    Torts and Damages digest pool

    G.R. No. L-53064 September 25, 1980

    Lanuzo vs. Ping and Mendoza

    Ruling:

     YES. For his own negligence in recklessly driving the truck owned and operated by his
    employer, the driver, Salvador Mendoza, is primarily liable under Article 2176 of the Civil
    Code. On the other hand, the liability of his employer, Sy Bon Ping, is also primary and
    direct under Article 2180 of the same Code

     For failure of the appellant Sy Bon Ping to rebut the legal presumption of his negligence in
    the selection and supervision of this employee,  he is likewise responsible for the damages
    caused by the negligent act of his employee (driver) Salvador Mendoza, and his liability is
    primary and solidary.

    o What needs only to be alleged under the aforequoted provision (Article 2180, Civil
    Code) is that the employee (driver) has, by his negligence (quasi-delict) caused
    damage to make the employer, likewise, responsible for the tortious act of the
    employee, and his liability is, as earlier observed, primary and solidary 

     But although the employer is solidarity liable with the employee for damages, the employer
    may demand reimbursement from his employee (driver) for whatever amount the employer
    will have to pay the offended party to satisfy the latter's claim.

    DISPOSITIVE PORTION

    WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed. Costs against defendants-appellants.

    SO ORDERED.

    Notes:

     The terms of plaintiff's reservation clearly and unmistakably make out a case for quasi-delict.

     This is also evident from the recitals in plaintiff's Complaint averring the employer-employee
    relationship between the appellants, alleging that damages to the house and store were caused
    by the fact that Salvador Mendoza had driven the truck "recklessly, with gross negligence and
    imprudence, without observance of traffic rules and regulations and without regard to the
    safety of persons and property", and praying that appellants be held jointly and solidarity
    liable for damages.

     These are, basically, what should be alleged in actions based on quasi-delict. 

     As it is quite apparent that plaintiff had predicated his present claim for damages on quasi-
    delict, he is not barred from proceeding with this independent civil suit.

     The institution of a criminal action cannot have the effect of interrupting the civil action based
    on quasi-delict. 

     And the separate civil action for quasi-delict may proceed independently and regardless of
    the result of the criminal case,  except that a plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the
    same act or commission of the defendant. 

    Ponente: Melencio-Herrera, J.

    Digest Maker: TORAYNO, KRIZTIA CREDENDA


    Torts and Damages digest pool

    G.R. No. L-53064 September 25, 1980

    Lanuzo vs. Ping and Mendoza

     The civil action referred to in Sections 3(a) and (b) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, which
    should be suspended after the institution of the criminal action, is that arising from delict, and
    not the civil action based on quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana.

    Ponente: Melencio-Herrera, J.

    Digest Maker: TORAYNO, KRIZTIA CREDENDA

    You might also like