You are on page 1of 1

MMTC vs. CA (Gr no.

104408)
Facts:
The case arose from Nenita who incurred injuries from being thrown out of the windshield of
the jeepney that she was riding that collided with a bus operated by MMTC (petitioner). Nenita filed for
damages for neither the operator of the jeepney nor the MMTC would pay for the damages sustained
by Nenita. The RTC ruled that MMTC is abstained from liability for it has proven that it has shown
diligence of a good father of a family in employing and supervising its employees. MMTC stated that it
goes through a process of screening, interviewing, and seminar attending before they hire their
employees. The CA reversed the decision of the RTC holding that the MMTC was not able to further
prove that its employees complied with its requirements.
Issue:
Whether or not diligence of a good father has been observed by MMTC.
Ruling:
The SC ruled that MMTC, being sued as employer of the bus driver Leonardo under Art. 2180 or
vicarious liability, was not able to prove that it had exercised due diligence of a good father of a family
in the selection and supervision of its employees as it has not proven that it exercised due diligence in
supervising its employees for mere imposition of hiring procedures and supervisory policies without
anything more is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence imposed upon them by the
law.
The basis of the employers vicarious liability is that the responsibility imposed by the article arises by
reason of a presumption of negligence on the part of the persons made responsible under the article
from their failure to exercise due care and vigilance over the acts of subordinates to prevent them from
causing damage. Negligence is imputed to them by law, unless they prove the contrary by showing
that they exercised diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. It is clear that it is the
non-performance of certain duties of precaution and prudence imposed upon them that is
why they are made answerable for damages caused by their employee.
For the doctrine to apply, it must first be shown that there is employer-employee relationship and that
the plaintiff must show that the tort complained of was committed in the scope of his assigned task
and that is when the employer may find it necessary to interpose a defense of due diligence of a good
father of a family. The diligence of a good father of a family required to be observed by the employer
to prevent damages under Art. 2180 refers to due diligence in the selection and supervision the
employees to protect the public.