Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Liability of employees
Araneta vs. De Joya
G.R. No. L-25172 (May 24, 1974)
Facts: Antonio de Joya was the general manager of the
Ace Advertising. He proposed that an employee, Ricardo
Taylor, be sent to the United States to take up special
studies in television. Although the board of directors
failed to act on the proposal, Taylor was still sent to the
US, with the assurance that Taylors expenses would be
defrayed by parties other than the company.
Taylor received his salaries while abroad
through checks and vouchers signed by Luis Araneta
(vice-president), Vicente Araneta (company treasurer) or
de Joya. The total costs of Taylors travel and study
expenses was P 5,043.20.
Ace Advertising filed a complaint with the court
for the recovery of the total amount disbursed to Taylor
since the travel and expenses were made without its
knowledge, authority or ratification. A third-party
complaint was filed by de Joya against Vicente Araneta,
Luis Araneta and Taylor.
Viluan vs. CA
G.R. Nos. L-21477-81 (April 29, 1966)
Facts: The bus owned by Francisca Viluan, and driven by
Hermenigildo Aquino raced with the overtaking bus
driven by Gregorio Hufana and owned by Patricio
Hufana. Aquino lost control of the bus, hitting a post and
crashing into a tree, after which it burst into flames
wherein seven persons were killed and thirteen others
were injured.
In the complaint for breach of contract of
carriage and damages filed by the heirs of those who
perished in the incident and Carolina Sabado, an injured
passenger, Vilaun and Aquino filed third party complaints
against Gregorio Hufana and his employer, Patricio
Hufana, contending that the incident was their fault.
The lower court found that the accident was
due to the concurrent negligence of the drivers of the
two buses and held both the two drivers and their
employers jointly and severally liable for damages.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of
concurrent negligence on the part of the two buses but
held that only Vilaun is liable because Aquino, as driver,
cannot be made jointly and severally liable in a contract
of carriage. It ruled that the Hufanas cannot be made
liable since the plaintiffs did not amend their complaints
in the main action so as to assert a claim against them.
Issue: Whether Patricio and Gregorio Hufana should be
made equally liable although they were third-party
defendants and not principal defendants
Held: The fact that the respondents were not sued as
principal defendants but were brought into the cases as
third party defendants should not preclude a finding of
their liability.
Section 5 Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, precluding a
judgment in favor of a plaintiff and against a third party
Madeja v. Caro
211 Phil 469 (December 21, 1983)
Facts: Dra. Eva Japzon is accused of homicide through
reckless imprudence for the death of Cleto Madejo after
an appendectomy. The widow of Madejo filed a criminal