Michaela De Guzman owners are liable for the death or injuries caused by the

operation of their vehicles.

Caravan Travel vs Abejar
Feb 10 2016 The plaintiff must first prove that the employer
Gr no. 170631 is the registered-owner of the vehicle. The main aim of
the registered owner rule is to identify the owner so
Facts: that if any accident happens on the public highway,
On July 31 2000, Jesmarine R. Reyes was hit by responsibility can be fixed on a definite individual, the
a Mitsubishi L-300 Van. The driver of the Van was Jimmy registered owner. Once the plaintiff successfully proved
Bautista. Bautista instead of helping Reyes, escaped. ownership, there arises a disputable presumption that
the requirement of art. 2180 have been proven. As a
The Registered owner of the van was Caravan consequence, the burden of proof shifts to the
Travel. Caravan Travel is a corporation engaged in the defendant to show that the liability under 2180 has not
business of organizing travels and tours. Two (2) days arisen.
after the accident Reyes died.
Here, Abejar presented a copy of the certificate
Abejar, the aunt of Reyes sued Bautista and of registration of the Van that hit Reyes. As a
Caravan Travel for damages. Summons could not be consequence of this proof, it is now up to Caravan that
served to Bautista so Abejar moved to drop Bautista as it incurred no liability under 2180 by presenting any of
a defendant. the following: (1) that it had no employment
Caravan interposed a defense that Abejar is not relationship with Bautista, (2) that Bautista acted
a party-in-interest and only the victim herself cab outside the scope of his assigned tasks; (3)that it had
enforced the action. Caravan also argued that it exercised the diligence of a good father of the family in
“exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of Bautista.
the selection and supervising its employees.
Applying it in the given case, Caravan admitted
Abejar contended that Caravan is the registered that Bautista was its employee. Caravan was not able to
owner of the van, it is directly and primarily and prove that Bautista was not acting within the scope of
solidarily liable for the tortuous acts of its driver. his assigned task and third the petitioner likewise failed
to prove it had exercised the diligence in the selection
Issue: WON abejar is a party in interest
ansd supervising Bautista. The presentation of the
WON Caravan is liable
company of the rules and memoranda is not sufficient,
Ruling:
it must be coupled with proof of compliance.
1. Yes, Abejar is a party in interest.
Hence, Caravan is liable.
Having exercised substitute parental authority,
respondent suffered actual loss and is thus a real party
Palisoc vs. Brillantes
in interest in the case.
41 SCRA 557
Oct 1971
2. Yes, Caravan is liable.
Facts:
For the resolution of this case, the court must
The deceased Dominador Palisoc and the
consiredered two(2) rules. First Art. 2180’sspecification
defendant Virgilio L. Daffon were classmates, and on
that “ employee shall be for the damage caused by
the afternoon of March 10, 1966, between two and
their employee..acting within the scope of their
three o'clock, they, together with another classmate
assigned task.” Second, the operation of the registered-
Desiderio Cruz were in the laboratory room located on
the ground floor. At that time the classes were in The president and the other teacher in charge
recess. Desiderio Cruz and Virgilio L. Daffon were of the school must be held jointly and severally liable
working on a machine while Dominador Palisoc was for the quasi delicts of their co-defendant Daffon.
merely looking on at them. Daffon made a remark to
the effect that Palisoc was acting like a foreman. Yonaha vs CA
Because of this remark Palisoc slapped slightly Daffon G.R. No. 112346
on the face. Daffon, in retaliation, gave Palisoc a strong March 29, 1996
flat blow on the face, which was followed by other fist
blows on the stomach. Palisoc retreated apparently to Facts:
avoid the fist blows, but Daffon followed him and both Elmer Ouano was charged with a crime of “
exchanged blows until Palisoc stumbled on an engine Reckless imprudence for negligently and recklessly
block which caused him to fall face downward. Palisoc hitting Hector Caete, while driving Toyota tamaraw
became pale and fainted. First aid was administered to which cause the death of the latter. Ouano pleaded
him but he was not revived, so he was immediately guilty.
taken to a hospital. He never regained consciousness; On April 27, 1992, a writ of execution was
finally he died. issued for the satisfaction of monetary award .
However, Ouano was unable to pay the monetary
Parents of Palisoc filed an action for damages. obligation. Private respondents filed a “motion for
However the trial court absolved the three defendant subsidiary execution” which was granted by the trial
official of the school on the ground that provision of Art court.
2180 which states that: Art. 2180. Lastly, teachers or
heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be Petitioner, the employer of Ouano opposed the
liable for damages caused by their pupils and students subsidiary execution on the ground of lack of prior
and apprentices, so long as they remain in their notice to her and on the ground that the employer’s
custody. In the given case the students involved do not liability had yet to be established.
lived and boarded with their teacher or of the other
defendant official. Issue: WON subsidiary liability of the employermay be
imposed on the petitioner
Issue: WON the interpretation of the Trial Court is
correct Ruling:
No, subsidiary liability of the employer may not
Ruling: No, the interpretation of the Trial Court is not be imposed on the petitioner yet.
correct.
This Court has since sanctioned the
 The phrase used in the cited article — "so long enforcement of this subsidiary liability in the same
as (the students) remain in their custody" means the criminal proceedings in which the employee is adjudged
protective and supervisory custody that the school and guilty, on the thesis that it really is a part of, and merely
its heads and teachers exercise over the pupils and an incident in, the execution process of the judgment.
students for as long as they are at attendance in the But, execution against the employer must not  issue as
school, including recess time. There is nothing in the law just a matter of course, and it behooves the court, as a
that requires that for such liability to attach the pupil or measure of due process to the employer, to determine
student who commits the tortious act must live and and resolve a priori,  in a hearing set for the purpose,
board in the school. the legal applicability and propriety of the employers
liability. The requirement is mandatory even when it
appears prima facie  that execution against the
convicted employee cannot be satisfied. The court must
convince itself that the convicted employee is in truth in
the employ of the employer; that the latter is engaged
in an industry of some kind; that the employee has
committed the crime to which civil liability attaches
while in the performance of his duties as such; and that
execution against the employee is unsuccessful by
reason of insolvency.

Hence, petitiomer, employer, should be given

opportunity to have a day in court.