You are on page 1of 4

The Heirs of the late Ruben Reinoso, Sr. vs.

Court of Appeal, Ponciano
Tapales et al.
Gr no. 116121 July 18, 2011
Mendoza, J.
Facts:
The complaint for damages arose from the collision of a
passenger jeepney and a truck at around 7:00 oclock in the evening of
June 14, 1979 along E. Rodriguez Avenue, Quezon City. As a result, a
passenger of the jeepney, Ruben Reinoso, Sr. (Reinoso), was killed. The
passenger jeepney was owned by Ponciano Tapales (Tapales) and
driven by Alejandro Santos (Santos), while the truck was owned by Jose
Guballa (Guballa) and driven by Mariano Geronimo (Geronimo).
The RTC rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner and
against Guballa ordering him to pay the Heirs of Reinoso the amount
og 250,000.00, in favor of defendant Jose Guballa under Policy No OV09527 the amount of 60,000.00 with the legal interest of 6% per
annum from date of complaint until fully paid.
The CA set aside the decision of the RTC and reverse the decision
of RTC and dismissed the complain on the ground of non-payment of
docket fees.
Issue:
Whether or not the private respondent is negligent.
Held:
Reinoso, the jeepney passenger, died as a result of the collision
of a jeepney and a truck on June 14, 1979 at around 7:00 oclock in the
evening along E. Rodriguez Avenue, Quezon City. It was established
that the primary cause of the injury or damage was the negligence of
the truck driver who was driving it at a very fast pace. The Court
likewise sustains the finding of the RTC that the truck owner, Guballa,
failed to rebut the presumption of negligence in the hiring and
supervision of his employee. Whenever an employees negligence
causes damage or injury to another, there instantly arises a
presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise
diligentissimi patris families in the selection or supervision of his
employee.
Thus, in the selection of prospective employees, employers are
required to examine them as to their qualification, experience and

and impose disciplinary measures for breaches thereof. Hence. 2003 Vitug. The vessel was suddenly tossed by waves of extraordinary height of six (6) to eight (8) feet and buffeted by strong winds of 1. Issue: 1. These facts must be shown by concrete proof. PKS Shipping has engaged itself in the business of carrying goods for others.00). With respect to the supervision of employees. PKS Shipping Company GR. The official Certificate of Inspection of the barge . including documentary evidence. WON PKS Shipping is liable. 149038 April 9.5 knots resulting in the entry of water into the barge’s hatches. Upon demand of payment by DUMC. Neither can the concept of a common carrier change merely because individual contracts are executed or entered into with patrons of the carrier. although for a limited clientele. J Facts: Davao Union Marketing Corporation (DUMC) contracted the services of respondent PKS Shipping Company (PKS Shipping) for the shipment to Tacloban City of seventy-five thousand (75. it sought reimbursement from PKS Shipping but the latter refused. Philamgen immediately paid them. Whether PKS Shipping is a common carrier or a private carrier. the barge where the bags of cement were loaded. No. undertaking to carry such goods for a fee. PKS Shipping is not liable.000. During the transport. DUMC insured the goods for its full value with petitioner Philippine American General Insurance Company (Philamgen). employers must formulate standard operating procedures. Held: PKS Shipping is a common carrier. The regularity of its activities in this area indicates more than just a casual activity on its part. WON PKS Shipping exercised the required diligence over the goods they carry. and 2. Philippine American General Insurance Company vs.000) bags of cement worth Three Million Three Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P3.service record.375. sank. monitor their implementation. Or.

and common carriers by land. 21 (B) for being contrary to the Constitution and the Local Government Code. through its City Treasurer. Sec. 7807 which amended Sec. As such. began imposing and collecting the business tax under Section 21(B) of the Manila Revenue Code. argued that it was constitutional and valid. while the subject ordinance amended such by lowering the tax rate from 3% per annum to . storm. 120051 December 10. persons who transport passenger or freight for hire. 2014 Leonardo-De Castro J Facts: The case involves 10 consolidated petitions involving several corporations operating as “transportation contractors. in conjunction with Section 143(h).issued by the Philippine Coastguard and the Coastwise Load Line Certificate would attest to the seaworthiness of Limar I. Angel Valera Colet and Malaysian Airline System GR No. and City of Manila’s Ordinance No. several corporations questioned the constitutionality of Sec. beginning January 1994. 21 (B) is based on the exempting clause found at the beginning of Sec. earthquake. NCC. among others: (1) Flood. 21 (B) of the Manila Revenue Code. lightning.5% per annum. persons who transport passenger or freight for hire. The City of Manila. common carriers are exempt from liability for loss. and common carriers by land. The City argued that the enactment of Sec. or deterioration of the goods due to any of the following causes. as amended. or other natural disaster or calamity x x x City of Manila and Anthony Acevedo vs. 1733. air or water” with principal offices in Metro Manila. . air or water”. and such position was adopted by the RTC and the CA when the case reached the respective fora. 133. of the LGC. Hon. destruction. The City of Manila.21 (B) imposed business tax on “transportation contractors. Because they were assessed and/or compelled to pay business taxes pursuant to Section 21(B) of the Manila Revenue Code before they were issued their business permits for 1994. under Art. and asked for the refund of what they had paid as business tax.

and liberally in favor of the taxpayer. such a construction is pursuant to the legislative intent to exclude from the taxing power of the LGU the imposition of business tax against common carriers to prevent a duplication of the so-called “common carrier’s tax. provides that in case of doubt. and common carriers by air. Held: In the case at bar. Sec. Such construction gives effect to both Sections 133(j) and 143(h) of the LGC. RAFAEL . Also. any tax ordinance shall be construed strictly against the LGU enacting it. when said sanggunian was already specifically prohibited from doing so.Issue: Whether or not the transportation contractors and common carriers are subject to local business tax. land.” KIMBERLY P. the sanggunian of the municipality or city cannot enact an ordinance imposing business tax on the gross receipts of transportation contractors. 5(b) of the LGC itself. persons engaged in the transportation of passengers or freight by hire. Furthermore. on Rules of Interpretation. or water.